Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 19

Science & Education

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00080-y

ARTICLE

The Correspondence of Charles Darwin as a Tool


for Reflecting on Nature of Science

Anthony W. Lorsbach 1 & Allison Antink Meyer


1
& Anna Maria Arias
2

# Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Abstract
This study took place in an introductory science inquiry course for preservice elementary
school teachers as a supplement to lessons on critical thinking. The correspondence of
Charles Darwin was used to provide historical context to nature of science concepts of the
sociocultural embeddedness of science, the subjective and reflective nature of the knowl-
edge and experiences of scientists, and science is composed of different types of
empirically based knowledge. Darwin’s own words, reactions to other’s words and ideas,
and personal correspondences illustrate the undercurrent of social interactions and private
thought processes that furthered the development of scientific understanding. Qualitative
analysis of student data indicates that these historical letters provided a medium through
which students were able to recognize ideas commonly identified as NOS. With the
appropriate instructional and pedagogical supports described, students demonstrated
knowledge of the historical context of Darwin’s work and the social enterprise of science
illustrated through that work, leading to their developing understanding of the nature of
science.

Keywords Nature of science . Sociocultural influences on science . Charles Darwin . Primary


sources . Elementary teacher preparation

1 Introduction

Teachers’ beliefs about both teaching and about science itself are central to their ability to teach
science as inquiry (Crawford 2007). Teachers with limited views of nature of science (NOS)
and inquiry teaching demonstrate teaching practices that emphasize only basic inquiry skills

* Anthony W. Lorsbach
awlorsb@ilstu.edu

1
School of Teaching and Learning, Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61790, USA
2
Department of Elementary & Early Childhood Education, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA
30144, USA
A. W. Lorsbach et al.

and that lack opportunities for learners to develop understanding about inquiry and NOS
(Capps and Crawford 2013). Preservice elementary teachers have been widely and consistently
found to hold limited understandings of NOS when they have not received explicit, reflective
instruction (Akerson et al. 2000, 2008; Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002). Historical cases
are one strategy for this type of instruction that supports NOS learning (Fouad et al. 2015;
Kampourakis and McComas 2010). The purpose of this study was to understand how and
whether historical, first-hand accounts of Darwin’s work and the controversies surrounding
that work could be a resource to science educators who work with preservice elementary
teachers.
Knowing something about the early criticisms of The Origin of Species as lacking in
inductive reasoning and the availability of Darwin’s letters, we decided to create this brief
exercise where students read letters to and from Charles Darwin about one incident related to
induction and The Origin. We used a criticism of The Origin and economist Henry Fawcett’s
(1861) response to it. The focus of the lesson was not to delve more deeply into induction but
to use the subject of induction as a topic to explore how primary sources can be used to expand
students’ understandings of the sociocultural influences in science and of related NOS
understanding. The context in which Darwin was situated provides an opportunity for the
explicit, reflective pedagogy about NOS advocated for by science educators (Akerson et al.
2000; Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002; Smith and Scharmann 2008). The participants in this
study had limited science inquiry experiences. Therefore, we wished to understand how they
made sense of the concepts and ideas related to NOS found in Darwin’s correspondences about
his inquiry.
Kampourakis and McComas (2010) have suggested that Darwin’s correspondences
provide a rich context and opportunity to support students’ knowledge about NOS. We
have adopted the general aspects view of NOS (Kampourakis 2016) and defined it as the
characteristics of scientific knowledge resultant from how the knowledge is developed
(Lederman 2004). This does not simply mean that NOS reflects the nature of scientific
methodology; it reflects the disciplinary, societal, historical, and cultural milieu of
scientific inquiry. Scientific inquiry refers to the Bprocesses of how scientists do their
work and how the resulting scientific knowledge is generated and accepted^ (Lederman
et al. 2014, p.66), Bincluding the conventions and ethics involved in the development,
acceptance, and utility of scientific knowledge^ (Schwartz et al. 2004, p. 611). This
definition reflects the context in which the sociocultural nature of science emerges,
which is emphasized in the literature as a central understanding of NOS (Lederman
2007; McComas 2008; Niaz 2009; Osborne et al. 2003). Students typically have little
understanding of the sociocultural influences in science and believe for the most part that
scientists tend to work alone in a laboratory simply following Bthe scientific method^
(Lederman 2007; McComas 1998).
[S]cience is fundamentally a social enterprise, and scientific knowledge advances through collaboration
and in the context of a social system with well-developed norms. Individual scientists may do much of
their work independently or they may collaborate closely with colleagues. Thus, new ideas can be the
product of one mind or many working together (NRC 2012, p. 27).

BSuccessful efforts to improve teachers’ and students’ NOS conceptions involve explicit NOS
instruction coupled with reflective discussions^ (Bell et al. 2016, p. 496). Darwin’s corre-
spondence about the role of induction in The Origin provides such an opportunity for
reflection on the sociocultural aspects of NOS.
The Correspondence of Charles Darwin as a Tool for Reflecting on Nature...

2 Background Information for Students

This section provides a brief, simplified overview of very complicated shifts in science using
the ideas of induction, deduction, and the hypothetico-deductive method with which students
had some familiarity from two introductory readings from the course text. Though participants’
understandings were limited, we felt that they knew enough about these topics to read and
reflect on the Darwin letters chosen for this study. It was not our intent to mislead our students
but to try to simplify the complicated history of these ideas to an abbreviated background
needed for students to make better sense of the letters. As Matthews (2012) has suggested,
it is unrealistic to expect students, or trainee teachers, to become competent historians, sociologists or
philosophers of science. We should have limited aims in introducing FOS [features of science] in the
classroom. Teachers should aim for a more complex understanding of science, not a total, or even very
complex, understanding. There is no need to overwhelm students with ‘cutting edge’ philosophical
questions. They have to crawl before they can walk, and walk before they can run. This is no more than
commonsensical pedagogical practice. (p. 21).

2.1 Induction Background

The goal of the lesson was to examine letters included in the Darwin Correspondence Project
online database for sociocultural aspects of NOS. We chose letters relating to induction
because it was discussed in a prior unit on critical thinking. Given the introductory nature of
this course, we discussed both induction and deduction as types of reasoning in the
development of an argument. We used Derry (2002) as a required course text, which included
the ideas that inductive reasoning was a method of logic Bto use the truth of many particular
statements to make a generalization^, whereas in deductive reasoning, Bconclusions are based
on a set of premises, and the truth of the premises implies the truth of the conclusions^ (p.92).
We supplemented our discussion of induction with a brief review and context for the assigned
letters as outlined in the rest of this section.
Induction is the method where conclusions are based on the accumulations of facts, where
one generalizes based on a large number of specific facts. Harrison (2016) noted that with
Bacon’s ideas Bthe basic premise was that a record of facts accumulated through experiments
and observations could provide the basis of subsequent generalizations based on inductive
inferences.^ The class was also already familiar with hypothetico-deductive reasoning, which
was introduced by the course text with a brief case study of Jenner’s work on smallpox.
At the time Darwin was actively developing his theory of natural selection, John Stuart Mill was
considered the most influential English philosopher. He also was considered an articulate propo-
nent of induction. Contrary to science as a strictly inductive endeavor is a method we now call the
hypothetico-deductive method. Ayala (2009) described the hypothetico-deductive method thusly:
new ideas in science are advanced in the form of conjectures or hypotheses, which may be more or less
precisely formulated and be of lesser or greater generality. However, it is essential to the scientific process
that any hypothesis be Btested^ by reference to the natural world that we experience with our senses. The
tests to which scientific ideas are subjected include contrasting and hypothesis with the world of
experience in a manner that must leave open the possibility that one might reject a particular hypothesis
if it leads to wrong predictions and the world of experience. (Ayala 2009, p.10035).1

1
We drew on Ayala’s description of hypothetico-deductive reasoning and acknowledge that others may view it
differently. Our purpose was to try to simplify the text so that the elementary education majors would be able to
parse and follow the text.
A. W. Lorsbach et al.

Promotion and explanation of this hypothetico-deductive method can be credited to many, but
the lesson used in the inquiry class focused on how hypothetic-deductive and inductive
thinking emerged in Darwin’s correspondence.2 The class discussion about Darwin and
hypothetico-deductive thinking was restricted to that of William Whewell, the English scien-
tist, mathematician, and philosopher. While some philosophers argue that Whewell was really
an inductivist, it seems he had room for hypothesizing. Macleod (2017) described both
Whewell and Mill as inductivists, but Whewell argued Bthat scientific reasoning had and
should involve the creative a priori development of concepts prior to the discovery of laws…,
[while Mill concluded] that observation and induction alone could track facts about the world
and elicit the concepts used in science^ (Macleod 2017, n.p.). Others believed that Mill was
eventually influenced by the work of Whewell and later editions to Mills’ A System of Logic
illustrate this influence by Mill’s softening his stance on hypothesizing and theorizing (Jacobs
1991). Darwin, concerned about reviews of his work, was very sensitive to criticisms by both
inductivists and hypothetico-deductivists.

2.2 Darwin’s Correspondence and Induction

The correspondences of Charles Darwin used in this lesson offered historical, primary
accounts of science that are reflective of the descriptions of NOS in science education reforms
(NGSS Lead States 2013; NRC 2012). Specifically, this study focused on science as socio-
culturally embedded, and therefore impacted by, and impactful on, societies and cultures;
subjective and reflective of the knowledge and experiences of scientists; and composed of
different types of empirically based knowledge (e.g., theories, observations, etc.). First, the
letters provide evidence of how the science of Darwin’s era was embedded within a Victorian
sociocultural context. This included the nature of information gathering and a type of Bpeer
review^ sought by Darwin at a time in which letter writing was a primary means of academic
and social communication. Secondly, the letters provide insight into the subjective nature of
science in the sense that they illustrate how different scientists, with distinct experiences and
perspectives, thought about science methods in conversations relating to Darwin’s book, The
Origin of Species.
One of the criticisms put forth by opponents of Darwin’s ideas published in the Origin of
Species was that he did not follow the true Baconian idea of induction, which was considered
to be Bthe scientific method^ of the 17th through the mid-nineteenth Century. Espoused by the
philosopher Francis Bacon (1561–1626), Baconian induction meant that conclusions were
based solely upon observations, that trying to prove your idea is not Baconian because you are
letting your ideas guide your observations. This relates to a third aspect of NOS illustrated in
the lesson. Science is empirically based, which is a fairly simple idea to grasp. However, there
are distinct types of knowledge that underlie data and that result from different practices and
analyses of data and these are oftentimes conflated. Darwin’s moment in history provides a
backdrop against which the nature of distinct types of scientific practices can be understood.
Specifically, observations, inferences, theories, and laws can each be examined and understood

2
The reader will notice in this section a reliance on anachronisms, i.e., comparing Darwin’s work to the
hypothetico-deductive method. This section communicates what we shared with our elementary education
students, not a review of the history of science. Anachronisms are used here as pedagogy. As educators we take
the students as they come to us - our students have very little background in the history and philosophy of
science, so we connected our lessons to what students already learned in the class to promote understanding of
NOS concepts illustrated in the letters.
The Correspondence of Charles Darwin as a Tool for Reflecting on Nature...

through the letters. By the time of Darwin, the Baconian way to understand science was giving
way to something more familiar to us as a hypothetico-deductive method, which was discussed
in course readings and class discussions.
To further contextualize the letters, we shared the following with students:
Two people mentioned in the assigned correspondences in particular should be mentioned. One is John
Stuart (J.S.) Mill. Mill is considered the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the 19th
Century, whose book A System of Logic (1843) outlines a more modern view of induction than Bacon,
particularly in later editions (Jacobs 1991). Mill was a very well-respected philosopher and economist by
the time of the letters. His student, Henry Fawcett, with whom Darwin communicated was later a faculty
member at Cambridge, a Member of Parliament, and Postmaster-General. Fawcett later defended
Darwin's methods in an article in Macmillan's Magazine and at another meeting of the British Association
in 1861.

Given that the assigned letters were related to Fawcett’s defense of Darwin, we included the
following extended quote from Macmillan’s Magazine (Volume III, 1861), to provide students
with a sense of how Fawcett made his argument.
There is much philosophic cant about this rigorous induction. An individual who is supremely ignorant of
science finds no difficulty in uttering some such salvo as, "This is not the true 'Baconian method." Such
expressions, which too frequently are mere meaningless phrases, were repeated ad nauseam at the British
Association. They are revived in an article on Mr. Darwin in the Quarterly Review. There we find it
reiterated, BThis is not a true Baconian induction." In reply to all this, it should at once be distinctly stated
that Mr. Darwin does not pretend that his work contains a proved theory, but merely an extremely
probable hypothesis. The history of science abundantly illustrates that through such a stage of hypothesis
all those theories have passed which are now considered most securely to rest on strict inductive principle.
Dr. Whewell has remarked, "that a tentative process has been the first step towards the establishment of
scientific myths." Some association perchance, as the falling apple, first aroused in Newton's mind a
suspicion of the existence of universal gravitation. He then had no proof of the particular law of this
gravitating force; he made several guesses…Those who attack the philosophic method of Mr. Darwin
ought explicitly to state how they would proceed to establish a theory on the origin of species by what
they term a rigorous induction. Is such an example to be found in the doctrine of creative fiats? The
greatest of logicians [John Stuart Mill] has remarked,

The mode of investigation which, from the proved inapplicability of direct methods of observation and
experiment, remains to us as the main source of the knowledge we possess, or can acquire, respecting the
conditions and laws of recurrence of the more complex phenomena., is called in its most general
expression the deductive method, and consists of three operations-the first, one of direct induction; the
second, of ratiocination [reasoning]; and the third, of verification."

The method here indicated Mr. Darwin has most rigorously observed. A life devoted to the most careful
scientific observations and experiments, and to the accumulation of a most comprehensive knowledge of
the details of natural history, has suggested to Mr. Darwin's mind a certain hypothesis with regard to the
origin of species. The results which have been deduced from this hypothesis he has endeavoured to verify
by a comparison with observed phenomena. Mr. Darwin has been himself most careful to point out that
this verification is not yet complete. Until it becomes so, Mr. Darwin's theory must be ranked as an
hypothesis. The eminently high authorities who have already welcomed Mr. Darwin's theory as a
probable hypothesis, should induce the general public to welcome it as a legitimate step towards a great
scientific discovery; and those who cannot take any special part in the controversy will render science a
great service if they resent bigoted prejudice, and earnestly seek to give both parties in the dispute a fair
hearing. (Fawcett 1861, pp. 83-84).

Fawcett’s defense of Darwin’s methodology and analysis illustrates aspects of NOS


(Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2004). Fawcett argued that Darwin’s induction reflected the nature
of the empirical basis of his interests and efforts, his personal, scientific perspectives, and
those of some of his contemporaries, and of the scientific culture of the time and place in
which he worked. Even among elementary grades, science investigations use a variety of
A. W. Lorsbach et al.

methods, tools, and techniques; and science findings are based on recognizing patterns.
The sociocultural embeddedness of science is also identifiable in Fawcett’s argument:
scientists’ backgrounds, theoretical commitments, and fields of endeavor influence the
nature of their findings.

3 Methods

The purpose for this 2-h lesson, spread over two class periods, was to introduce students
with little experience with the history and philosophy of science to a vignette of
scientists engaged in discussions of a topic discussed in class (induction). For serious
students of the history and philosophy of science, this treatment may seem trivial, but for
elementary education majors, this supplemental lesson provided an opportunity to think
about their own understandings of science and to make connections to NOS using a
method (using primary sources) taught in their program. The lesson provided some
historical context as to how a course topic, induction, was used and argued about in
the nineteenth century for the purpose of enhancing students’ understanding of the nature
of science. It was not our intent for students to identify an exhaustive list of NOS
understandings (Kampourakis and McComas 2010). Instead, we wanted to determine
how, and whether, student responses would reflect NOS concepts from these primary
sources. The study was guided by the following research question: To what extent can
preservice, undergraduate, elementary teachers make inferences about the nature of
science from historical, primary accounts of Darwin’s work?

3.1 Study Context and Participants

This study took place in a large teacher education program at a public university in the USA.
Participants were undergraduate students in an elementary education licensure program. As is
typical in the USA (Banilower et al. 2018), our elementary education majors receive very little
science instruction: three introductory courses that concentrate almost exclusively on general
science facts. To support the development of better understanding of science prior to teaching,
students in our elementary education program take a science inquiry course prior to a more
traditional science methods course. The inquiry course promotes engagement in, and under-
standing about, inquiry, NOS, and reflection on students’ beliefs about science. The students
had not received formal instruction on NOS in classes prior to their enrollment in the inquiry
course. The aims of the course do not emphasize pedagogical learning, but instead focus on
students’ understanding of themselves as science learners.
Forty-two students consented to participate in this study. The participants represent a
convenience sample given their enrollment in one of the authors’ courses; they were
typical of students enrolled in our teacher education program. Given the specific expe-
riences of these participants, we do not claim to generalize these finding to all preservice
teachers, but rather, see this study as providing insights into the inferences that can be
made by preservice elementary teachers within this setting. For course purposes, the
instructor did not assess or evaluate responses, but their submission was counted as
partial fulfillment of required class participation. Students were familiar with induction
and deduction, as well as Francis Bacon and hypothetico-deductive methods from
previous course readings and discussions.
The Correspondence of Charles Darwin as a Tool for Reflecting on Nature...

3.2 The Letters and Lesson

Darwin was a prolific letter writer with over 15,000 letters surviving from approximately 200
correspondents. Fortunately, thousands of these letters are available via the Darwin
Correspondence Project (DCP) (https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/). BDarwin used letters as a
way both of discussing his ideas and gathering the ‘great quantities of facts’ that he used in
developing and supporting his theories^ (https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letters/darwins-life-
letters). The letters also provide glimpses of Darwin’s personal life and feelings.
Letters were chosen by initially entering the keyword induction in the DCP search engine.
Twenty-eight letters resulted from this keyword search. We further narrowed the letters down to
the eight letters that specifically pertained to Fawcett’s defense of Darwin and were suitable to our
NOS instructional purposes. The chosen letters are listed chronologically to better tell the story of
Fawcett’s defense of Darwin and Darwin’s response to that defense to other friends and colleagues.
Initial questioning indicated that students knew very little about Charles Darwin. Most
knew he had something to do with evolution, fewer still could associate him with natural
selection, birds’ beaks, or his voyage on the Beagle. Therefore, the lesson was introduced with
a brief video about Darwin from DCP (https://vimeo.com/140428483) followed by a question
and discussion session of approximately 45 min. Students were also directed to read short
biographies of the individuals with whom Darwin corresponded in the eight letters. They were
asked then to read the letters and answer a series of questions about them. Their individual
responses were submitted electronically to the course website and were followed by a brief
class discussion to solicit overall impressions of the assignment. The chosen letters below are
all written to and/or from very well-known scientists and friends of Darwin as well as one from
Darwin’s brother Erasmus (Fig. 1). The following links included in the assignment provided
more information about these correspondents from DCP.
Adam Sedgwick: http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/adam-sedgwick
John Stevens Henslow: http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/john-stevens-henslow
T.H. Huxley: http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/thomas-henry-huxley
Charles Lyell: http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/charles-lyell
Asa Gray: http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/asa-gray
After reading the letters, students were asked the following questions:

(1) The letters above are just a small fraction of the over 15,000 letters to/from Darwin in the
Cambridge University collection. What do you think can be learned about science and
scientists from such letters?
(2) What were your first impressions of the letters? What struck you as interesting?
(3) Given what you know about the methods of science how would you describe the
methods of science in 1861?
(4) Why was Darwin concerned about the induction criticisms?
(5) What might these letters tell us about how and why scientists communicate with one another?
(6) How can these letters inform our understanding of science today?

3.3 Analysis

Responses were coded as described by Strauss and Corbin (1998). The data represented all
student responses to six questions totaling 97 pages of text. Analysis began with open coding.
A. W. Lorsbach et al.

The letters are examples of how scientists communicated with one another in the mid-1800s.
Read the correspondences below. Note who sent and who received the letters; their
conversations about induction, hypothesis, evidence, and methods of science; and other science
and non-science topics.
1) A letter to Darwin from Adam Sedgwick dated 24 November 1859. Darwin Correspondence
Project, “Letter no. 2548,” accessed on 10 November
2016, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2548
2) A letter to J.S. Henslow from Darwin dated 8 May 1860. Darwin Correspondence Project,
“Letter no. 2791,” accessed on 11 November 2016, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-
LETT-2791
3) A letter to T.H. Huxley from Darwin dated 5 December 1860. Darwin Correspondence
Project, “Letter no. 3009,” accessed on 10
November2016, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-3009
4) A letter to Henry Fawcett from Darwin dated 6 December 1860. Darwin Correspondence
Project, “Letter no. 3012F,” accessed on 10 November
2016, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-3012F
5) A letter to Darwin from Henry Fawcett dated 16 July 1861. Darwin Correspondence Project,
“Letter no. 2868,” accessed on 10 November 2016, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-
LETT-2868
6) A letter to Charles Lyell from Darwin dated 20 July 1861. Darwin Correspondence Project,
“Letter no. 3215,” accessed on 10 November 2016, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-
LETT-3215
7) A letter to Asa Gray from Darwin dated 21 July 1861. Darwin Correspondence Project,
“Letter no. 3216,” accessed on 10 November 2016, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-
LETT-3216
8) A letter from Erasmus Darwin from Darwin dated 9 November 1863. Darwin
Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 4334,” accessed on 10 November
2016, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-4334 (with good JS Mill footnote)
Fig. 1 Directions to the letters

The purpose of open coding is to Buncover, name, and develop concepts…open up the texts
and expose the thoughts, ideas, and meaning contained therein^ (Strauss and Corbin 1998,
p.102). This is done by closely examining the data for similarities and differences. Similarities
were grouped together into categories. Initial open coding resulted in over 70 categories. The
responses were then recoded to account for connections between initial, open categories which
resulted in 19 categories that were then compared to formal conceptions of NOS. Three
researchers were involved in coding. The first author initially coded student responses that
emerged from the data. Two additional researchers supported investigator triangulation
(Denzin 1970) through the iterative development of 19 consistent codes and comparisons to
the general aspect conceptualization of NOS (Kampourakis 2016). Seventeen of the 19 were
consistent with NOS. Disagreements in the coding scheme were discussed until 100%
agreement was achieved in order to further support trustworthiness (Lincoln and Guba
1985). Selective codes were developed to Bexplain, in a general sense, what is going on^
(Strauss and Corbin 1998, p.145). Finally, selective codes were compared to the categories of
NOS listed in Table 1. Validity was established through investigator triangulation, which is the
The Correspondence of Charles Darwin as a Tool for Reflecting on Nature...

use of multiple researchers (i.e., the co-authors) to study a particular phenomenon (Denzin
1970). The student responses that follow are not inclusive of all responses submitted, but
instead are representative of the ideas represented from the derived codes. Findings are
organized by the prompts given to students.

4 Findings

Students’ reflections were guided by six prompts provided by the instructor in the form of
questions listed above. These prompts were designed to provide a lens for students to consider
the nature of science illustrated in Darwin’s personal and professional communications. The
prompts were designed to be broad enough to support students’ individual perspectives while
narrowing their focus to allow them to make connections between letters and other class
experiences. Table 1 indicates the number and nature of the codes that emerged within each
prompt and how they fell within the NOS categories identified. The prompts were not
designed to elicit the aspects of NOS in the categories below. Instead, the prompts were
intended to broadly ask about students’ interpretations. Only after coding the data did we
examine the codes to see if NOS categories listed in the table below were included in the coded
responses.

4.1 Prompt 1: First Impressions of the Letters

Students’ initial impressions of the letters were coded by four related themes (insecurities,
personal support, honesty/directness, and communication style). These codes were collec-
tively categorized within the sociocultural nature of science (Table 1) because they relate to
societal and cultural patterns and expectations in which Darwin’s work was embedded. When

Table 1 Nature and number of codes within NOS categories

Category of nature of science (NOS) Codes within NOS Reflection Total # of


(Lederman 2007) categories prompt quotes across
(# quotes) all prompts

Science is socioculturally embedded, Insecurities 1 (2) 2


and therefore impacted by, and Personal support 1 (15) 20
impactful on, societies and cultures 5 (5)
Honesty/directness 1 (16) 36
2 (20)
Communication style 1 (20) 37
2 (17)
Science is subjective and reflective Private thoughts 2 (7) 7
of the knowledge and experiences Thought processes 2 (5) 5
of scientists Disagreement 2 (7) 7
Corroboration of interpretation 5 (18) 18
Science is composed of different Science in transition 3 (38) 38
types of empirically based knowledge Criticisms of induction 4 (40) 40
(e.g. theories, observations, etc) Argumentation 5 (22) 22
that have unique definitions and Change 6 (9) 9
structures Development of scientific knowledge 6 (26) 26
Evidence of the empirical nature 6 (12) 12
A. W. Lorsbach et al.

students were asked their first impressions of the letters and what struck them as interesting,
students responses tended to focus on personal aspects of the letters. Two students spoke to
what they perceived as Darwin’s insecurities:
I was interested to see how Darwin was so sensitive about the subject, and how big of an impact the
positive messages had on him. It was somewhat funny to see him spreading the word in many of his
letters that John Stuart Mill agreed with his logic and reasoning.(TBu)

Nine students spoke to the personal nature of the letters, especially how supportive Adam
Sedgwick was of Darwin, even though he disagreed with Darwin’s conclusions. An example
of the personal support code is
I was also surprised by how endearing they were, and how close Darwin seemed to be with all of these
people. I was also struck by the idea that he was communicating with people that agreed with him, like
T.H. Huxley, as well as people that disagreed with him, like Adam Sedgwick.(KG)

Other students shared similar ideas such as Bhow scientists truly share their lives with one
another,^ and Bhow affectionate and sincere some of them were towards each other^. The
preservice teachers also focused on the inclusion of personal relationships and/or feelings as
part of this personal support:
Many of the letters included portions about their family members or how they were feeling rather than
simply just talking about science. It was interesting to see that they were communicating their feelings and
personal lives also given that I thought it would solely be based on science.(LF)

Six other students also mentioned the personal nature of the letters and thought it provided
insight about the scientists as real people.
The frequent asides and mentions of personal life between Darwin and these other men was also
interesting to me. I think I tend to forget that Darwin was a real man with a real family, real worries,
real insecurities, and real sufferings. The people with which he corresponded with were his confidants for
both science related and personal matters.(MK)

Initially, I was slightly shocked at how some of the contents of the letters were kind of gossipy at times,
which makes sense since Darwin is a real person. What stood out to me the most was the letter to Asa
Gray, when Darwin was speaking about the Civil War happening in the U.S. where Gray was located.
This letter really made me think about the information deeper and connect Darwin's timeline to the
historical timeline and put his life in context with what was happening in the world at the time.(SV)

And how, as friends, scientists supported one another:


One thing I found interesting is not only did the scientists need each other to bounce ideas off one another,
but they needed each other for support and encouragement. As there were times when the content in the
letters weren’t the most uplifting for Darwin, I noticed that he especially appreciated when his friends and
colleagues wrote to him to support and lift him up. They also seemed to care about each other’s well-
being and everyday lives as the content of the letters weren’t always entirely about science, which was
interesting to me.(AT)

Sixteen students made comments that addressed how open and honest the writers were:
They weren’t afraid to be real with who they were writing to as they shared their thoughts and ideas about
their own work and also the work of other scientists. They didn’t hold back much and could be brutally
honest at times even if it wasn’t necessarily what the other person would want to hear. I think this sheds
light on just how it important correspondence letters were to Darwin in collecting the data he need to
prove and discuss his theories with colleagues.(AT)

What struck me as interesting at first when reading these letters was the abruptness and raw honesty of the
authors. They were real in the analysis of Darwin’s Origin, whether in kind realness or despising realness.
The authors of the letters told Darwin what they really thought about his Origin. In turn, Darwin was real
in his responses to friends and associates’ reviews.(DK)
The Correspondence of Charles Darwin as a Tool for Reflecting on Nature...

One of the preservice teachers even contrasted the openness of the letters with the communi-
cation styles of today.
Something that struck me as interesting was how open they were about their agreements and disagree-
ments. Maybe it’s just how the times have changed, but today people are much more passive aggressive
than these artifacts portrayed Darwin and his correspondents.(KS)

Finally, regarding first impressions, 20 students spoke to the idea of reading letters and how
times have changed—mostly. Their impressions were coded as communication style because
their reflections were largely indicative of the distinctions between how they communicate
today, or perceive modern communication, with that of the letters.
Overall, I thought that these letters were really interesting because I rarely actually read letters.(KG)

Something I found interesting about the letters was the length and detail of these letters. Especially
considering the time period that these letters were written in, these letters must have taken a while to
handwrite.(ED)

My first impressions of the letters were how normal sounding they were. I don’t know why but I expected
them to be bogged down with heavy scientific language and hard to read. Honestly, they don’t sound all
too different from normal correspondence nowadays; just older language was used.(KM)

I find it funny with Sedgwick ends his letter saying he wrote it in a hurry even though its six paragraphs
long!(KS)

These initial impressions of the students indicate a better understanding of social interactions
and personal communications among scientists. It seemed to be a new experience for students
used to the norms of texting and social media that Darwin and his colleagues discussed their
personal lives, and regard for one another, as well as discussing scientific ideas. Prior to this
activity, students’ perceptions of scientists’ communication with one another appeared to be
limited to the formal communications of science such as scientific journals, not Bnormal^
letters to friends and colleagues.

4.2 Prompt 2: What Can Be Learned About Science and Scientists?

Students were asked what could be learned about science and scientists from letters such as
those read for this assignment. Reflections tended to fall into two categories: the subjective
nature of science and ideas related to the sociocultural nature of science. The codes were not
necessarily mutually exclusive as many comments relating to the coding category Bbehind the
scenes^ relate to the sociocultural nature of science. One sub-code from the Bbehind the
scenes^ category responses was getting a glimpse of the Bprivate thoughts^ of the scientists. Of
the 42 respondents, seven students’ responses contained a reference to the private thoughts of
scientists. These are each indicative of students’ emerging conceptions of the subjective nature
of science because it reflects the knowledge and experiences of scientists.

I think there is a lot to be learned about scientists and science in general when looking at the letters
they’ve left behind. These letters allow for us to get a glimpse into their minds and what they were
thinking. Letters are so personal in nature; so, we’re able to read about their private thoughts and ideas.
Because many scientists received strife for their theories and ideas, letters allowed them to privately share
what they couldn’t with the public. We are also able to see scientists backing up their claims.(ES)

We get insight into what goes into their minds and their thoughts, but not formally or academically, but
more casually and informally. This would allow us to learn his thought processes that led up to the things
that he concluded and the specific strategies of what worked best for him. Since not all scientists think
A. W. Lorsbach et al.

alike, one can learn specifically about Darwin and the scientists that wrote him back and the ways that
they think. This can open doors to our trains of thought, as we may have not thought to sort out our
thoughts like that.(KV)

I think by understanding the personal side of a scientist, especially from this time period, it becomes easier
to understand why they did certain things (either in their research or in their personal life). You could
compare it to learning a language- anyone can learn the words and grammatical structure to a language,
but until you understand their culture, traditions, etc. you are not really going to know the language
because you do not know where it comes from or how it exists in its natural state. The same concept
reminds me of these scientists.(LC)

Scientists’ interactions with one another form a key part of the scientific community and the
scientific culture in which they are embedded. The central nature of a culture of science and its
place within a society that both challenged and supported scientists and their ideas are
illustrated in the following quotes. As with their initial impressions of the letters previously
discussed, 20 of 42 students mentioned how scientists collaborated with one another and were
part of a community that both challenged and supported one another. These were coded as
honesty/directness.

I never knew that Darwin has so much to prove when it came to his idea of natural selection and how
many people were by his side during the process of it all, or against him. This can teach you that scientists
do not do everything by themselves and collaborate with their peers. I know for me I had no idea these
letters existed or that correspondences were so frequent.(RH)

Growing up I was given a science textbook or told facts about revolutionary scientists, and I believed
them. I knew Einstein was E=MC2 and I knew that Darwin had something to do with Natural Selection,
but that was it. I memorized facts but really didn’t actually know about these scientists or what they went
through to become known in history. These letters give us the chance to learn about the actual work and
connections the scientists put into their work.(HH)

Through these letters we are able to gain insight on how scientists work in such a close
community. When I think of scientists, I often think of people who are in solitude and devote
so much time to research and studies. These letters show me that even though some scientists have
different points of views and beliefs, such as Mill and Darwin, they are still able to support and
encourage one another in their work.(AV)

Five students mentioned how the letters provided insight into the thought processes of
scientists:

Through these letters, we can now understand the thought process of scientists in the 1800s and the
progression of that thought process. One scientist’s ideas (Francis Bacon) were seen as truth until other
scientists came along (Charles Darwin) and had other ideas. Darwin helped fundamentally transform the
realm of scientific thought and process. No longer were scientists held back by conclusions based on data
already collected. Scientists were now allowed to wonder about the world, base hypotheses after those
wonderings, and develop experiments that radically changed and improved the world.(DK)

Communication was a topic that 17 of the 42 students discussed.

These letters show a lot of how science teaches us that we need support from others to help make our
findings more valid. Especially in the past, communicating was a big part of Darwin’s process to either
help his findings or not. It shows us that people don’t really like change and that it’s hard to have new
ideas in a world that is set in their mind. From reading these letters we can also learn that from
communicating findings and disagreeing molded how Darwin researched and did his work. We can see
that with the help of others he either revised and added to his findings or taken away things that needed to
be removed.(SG)
The Correspondence of Charles Darwin as a Tool for Reflecting on Nature...

This communication of scientists pushed against the stereotype of the Bisolated scientists^,
I believe that these letters are an excellent example of how scientists communicate with each other. A
typical stereotype of scientists is that they are isolated and only involved in their work. However, these
letters are proof that they communicate with one another (even back then) and provide advice, criticism,
and support to their fellow scientists and friends.(SSt)

Seven students specifically mentioned how prominent disagreement was among the letter
writers.
We are also able to see scientists backing up their claims. Darwin had to support his ideas when faced with
opposing views. For example, the reading about Adam Sedgwick talked about how didn’t agree with
Darwin’s evolutionary theories. This can be seen in his letter to Darwin. I imagine that Darwin had to
consider his concerns and think of ways to combat them.(ES)

Another idea that students discussed was how ideas or knowledge in science was subject to
change.
Learning science from these letters can indicate that sometimes a theory or idea is sometimes not accepted
amongst its readers. Sometimes answers are not clear and there need to be many examples that prove this
theory/ idea correct. We have to be skeptical in order to understand what is happening around us. The
letter to JS Henslow allowed us to see the idea that many individuals may not agree with various ideas
such as geological distribution, classification may not be perceived as natural selection elements/contri-
butions. Scientists do recognize what others may not recognize and they are aware of skepticisms that
others have. This aids in the processes of "proving them wrong" with evidence to support a claim which is
a very important aspect of science.(KK)

Students’ responses revealed insight to their beliefs about science and how these scientists
developed ideas and shared those ideas with others. LC, an English-as-a-Second-Language
elementary major, compared the understanding she gained about science to learning another
language: without understanding the culture and traditions embedded in that language, one
does not really understand the language. To LC, the letters provided a glimpse into the culture
and traditions of science that helped her better makes sense of science. These responses further
revealed students’ awareness that scientists were part of a community that both challenged and
supported its members. Such awareness supports the NGSS goal of science as a social
enterprise. Other prominent aspects of this set of responses were students’ perceptions of
how important communication was as a means of collaboration, how disagreement required
the use of evidence to back up claims, and the tentative nature of science.

4.3 Prompt 3: the Methods of Science in 1861?

Students were also asked to describe the methods of science in 1861. Thirty-eight responded
that science at the time was in transition, that hypothesizing was becoming legitimate, and that
science was transitioning away from strictly inductive methods. The nature of data and data
collection and the structures of empirically based knowledge were undergoing their own
evolution. Examples of the science in transition code are found in the following quotes.
I think that the methods of science in 1861 were changing from more basic and observational to more
complex and based on testing and hypotheses. I think it was a time where things were beginning to
change but the traditional naturalist still had power over what is accepted and what was not. The scientist
walked a fine line between the old and new methods and were often worried about how others would
view their experiments and findings.(EJu)

While variously calling Darwin’s method deduction, the hypothetico-deductive method (both
of those having been discussed previously in class), and the scientific method, the students
A. W. Lorsbach et al.

were able to articulate that a change toward wider acceptance of more contemporary views of
hypothesizing was taking place. The lesson demonstrated to students that accepted science
methods can change over time.

4.4 Prompt 4: Was Darwin Concerned with Induction Criticisms?

Students were also asked about the apparent concern that Darwin exhibited in the letters
about criticisms of his ideas of natural selection as not being inductive. All students
referenced the idea that the criticisms of induction were an attack on the credibility of
himself or his ideas.

It seemed that Darwin was concerned with the induction criticisms because he wanted to be considered
credible and logical. He talked a lot about Mills and how he said that Darwin’s reasoning is in accordance
with the strict principles of logic and that the method he followed was appropriate for the subject he was
theorizing. His credibility seemed to be important to him.(ES)

Darwin was concerned about the induction criticisms because he really wanted his findings to be found
true and if they don’t follow the certain standard of science findings of the time he might have been
thought as not important. His whole life’s work has been based on what he has found, and if what he
found was judged by the way he got there, he would have been penalized and might have been rejected in
the science world.(AK)

I had a hard time identifying the specific reason why Darwin was concerned. It was obvious that
he was concerned and also irritated. It seemed like he was upset either because people were being
critical of the work he spent 30 years on, or because he was concerned that criticism would keep
young men who could do additional research away, which were necessary to continue the work of
his research.(LC)

Students agreed that Darwin was concerned about the lack of inductive thinking in developing
his ideas on natural selection. Some saw his concern as a response to an attack on his personal
credibility or his ideas about natural selection. It was likely both. Darwin wrote about his
concern that future scientists might be reluctant to study his ideas if critiques were too harsh
but students also inferred his personal interest.

4.5 Prompt 5: Why Do Scientists Communicate with One Another?

After reading the letters, students were asked why they thought that scientists communicate
with one another. Five students believed that the letters indicated scientists communicate to
encourage and reassure one another. Examples of this personal support code are found in the
following quotes.

Based on the letters between Darwin and his scientist friends, it seems that it is important for them to
communicate in order to build each other’s confidences. Darwin faced a lot of criticism, but he knew he
could turn to his friends for encouragement and resources.(ET)

These letters tell us that scientists may often communicate in written form. These letters also tell us that
scientists may communicate in order to provide praise or criticism. Moreover, these letters also indicate
that scientists may communicate to provide thanks and/or reassurance.(KF)

Eighteen students believed that scientists had their ideas strengthened with the help of
their friends. This corroboration of interpretation was supportive of the empirical
basis of Darwin’s ideas:
The Correspondence of Charles Darwin as a Tool for Reflecting on Nature...

These letters can tell us about the potential importance for these scientists to get feedback from others who
are also knowledgeable about the subject of science and the topics being studied. When they communi-
cate with one another, they can hear other viewpoints and various scientific thinking processes. These
letters also tell us that scientists communicated in a way that conveyed their honest thoughts, however,
they also seemed to encourage one another in their scientific endeavors as friends & fellow scientists.

One student projected the idea from Darwin’s letters to scientists today:
These letters tell us that scientists communicate with one another in order to bounce ideas off of
one another, to get feedback, and encourage each other. With new technology, scientists are able to
communicate easier with one another and share their thinking and ideas quicker. They can also see
how others respond to their thinking and can point out the flaws in their experiments. They allow
an outside perspective on the experiment and findings that do not have any bias towards the
information.(LP)

Twenty-two students related the letters back to the idea of argumentation and debate discussed
earlier in the course.
Scientists communicate with one another because they build on each other's opinions regarding various
scientific processes and ways of thinking/conducting experiments. It is crucial that they receive each
other's feedback, input, and even criticism at times, in order to strengthen their arguments and continue to
expand their knowledge base.(MK)

I think the letters can convey a lot about the importance of a scientific community. The Victorian scientists
used these letters to support and encourage each other in their scientific endeavors, but to also to debate
and critique each other’s work where they saw fit. There weren’t criticisms in every one of the Darwin
letters, as I noticed there were times when they simply updated each other on their lives or gave words of
support. Scientists need to communicate with one another to be able to collaborate and replicate
experiments. As we read in the letters, the scientists also used published articles and books to be able
to communicate and debate their findings as well.(BT)

These letters lead me to believe that communication between scientists drives more discovery. The
disapproval and disagreements seemed to drive Darwin to continue to work to prove his work or work
to fill the holes pointed out.(SV)

Student responses related to why scientists communicate with one another demon-
strated their focus on reassurance, encouragement, and blunt honesty. Despite empha-
sizing different motivations, the students concluded that the communication led to
better science.

4.6 Prompt 6: How Can the Letters Inform Our Understanding of Science Today?

Three broad and overlapping codes emerged from students’ responses to this question: How
science can change over time, how the letters demonstrate insight into the nature and methods
of science, and that we can learn about science through history. Nine students discussed the
how science can change with time:

From these letters we can see how science has changed over the years and how it has stayed the same. We
can compare and contrast important methods, ideas, and beliefs about science that were held in the past to
those held today. From these letters we see the importance of communication in science that is still
relevant today and should be something we continue to value and expand in science. These letters also
help us to understand the beginning transitions from the methods used in science in the 1800s to the
methods used in science today.(AJ)

Twenty-six students mentioned that the letters help to convey understanding of the overarching
nature of the development of scientific knowledge:
A. W. Lorsbach et al.

They can inform our understanding of science today by letting us be inside the minds of such influential
scientists. They let us know that providing arguments and being skeptical are important parts of
science.(SF)

I think these letters can speak to the importance of not letting what "everyone else" thinks or says is
socially acceptable to undermine a new idea or finding. Many of the discoveries that have informed
practices or inventions that are crucial for us today, such as vaccinations, would not have been possible
had scientists lacked the gusto to move forward in their observations, regardless of the pushback. These
letters speak of the importance of conferencing and compiling data, of understanding all of the potential
facets of an issue, and of always striving to collect more, study more, and analyze more. Now,
hypothesizing is a process that is common and necessary in order to conduct scientific research, and
not in any way considered negative, which shows how much science processes can shift over time.(MJ)

These letters can inform our understanding of science today by showing us what methods work best and
how to go about revising and editing the work that has been done. They show us the importance of having
others look and review the work that you have done in order to find the flaws and misconceptions. It
shows us how our ideas and concepts have changed throughout time and the processes that must occur in
order to understand science.(EJo)

Twelve students’ responses specifically mentioned what can be learned from such historical
documents. The letters themselves were viewed as empirical evidence of the empirical nature
of scientific knowledge:

Having these letters to serve as a primary source to examine theories of these notable scientists greatly
influences our understanding of science today. We can read many texts and interpret the information for
ourselves but seeing the actual dialogue between correspondents gives us a better representation of the
actual information exchanged.(LT)

These letters can encourage people through the example of a scientist pushing back against critics and
straying from the norm. They also provide a unique insight into the thoughts scientists had about science
at a different time in history. They provide a different perspective from a primary source that isn't altered
by the hindsight that we have with our current scientific knowledge.(SB)

Students’ responses indicated an understanding that the correspondence provided an example


of science as socially embedded and scientific thought grows through a social system with
well-developed norms, personal interaction, and collaboration.

5 Conclusions

The letters from Charles Darwin’s correspondence provided an authentic, historical


experience with this social enterprise through the lens of one of its most prominent
contributors. They supported both learning about the empirical and sociocultural ele-
ments of NOS and learning about scientists and argumentation in scientific inquiry.
Darwin’s own words, reactions to the words and ideas of others, and personal corre-
spondences illustrate the undercurrent of social interactions and private thought process-
es that furthered the development of scientific understanding. Few teachers, particularly
elementary teachers, have experiences with science as researchers themselves. The
insights gained through these primary accounts of science provide contextual knowledge
whose importance is often overlooked.
In addition, the letters provide primary evidence of the socioculturally embedded, subjec-
tive, and empirically based nature of science. First, science is both impacted by, and impactive
of, the sociocultural contexts in which it is done (Lederman 2007). Teachers and learners have
The Correspondence of Charles Darwin as a Tool for Reflecting on Nature...

long been found to have some limited understanding that science influences society, but only a
tenuous understanding of the influence of society on science (Abd-El-Khalick et al. 1998;
Lederman et al. 2002; Lederman and Lederman 2014). These letters provided an opportunity
to promote reflection on the relationship between science, society, and culture as interactive
(Kampourakis and McComas 2010). The communications between scientists were acknowl-
edged by students as an important means of collaboration and peer review. One student
contrasted the nature of the communication in Darwin’s letters and that of today, as a difference
of direct versus passive aggressive communication. Their reflection on the tone of the letters
was an important theme among all the students, potentially because of centrality of written
communication in their own lives. Texting and social media was viewed as a modern version
of communication that was less direct and less honest. The direct and honest nature of the
letters was, like modern electronic communication, an artifact of the culture of the place and
time in which Darwin lived. The nature of that communication, the time that it took, the
directness of its tone, was an important contributor to the knowledge that was ultimately
developed.
The subjective and empirically based aspects of scientific knowledge were also a
point of reflection for students, and through the lens of the time in which Darwin lived
they were supportive of understanding modern science. The thirty-eight students who
discussed the changing nature of scientific methods in 1861 did so by describing the
dominant conceptions of methodology in Darwin’s time as in transition in this period.
The views and experiences of scientists are inter-related with methodological assump-
tions and privilege; an example of the relevance of subjectivity in science. The transition
from inductive to acceptance of hypothetico-deductive methods of Darwin, and the
tensions therein, played a central role in the eventual acceptance of Darwin’s ideas.
The nature of data, data collection, and data analysis is interwoven within this subjective
element and exemplifies how the empirical basis of science cannot be viewed as simply
as a matter of objectivity.
Our study also raises new questions about how to support preservice elementary
teachers’ development of understanding of the nature of science within the shortened
time frame allotted within teacher education programs. For example, we wonder if
additional discussion of the Cambridge University links between Darwin and the letter
writer may further highlight the sociocultural embeddedness of this work. Further
research may consider how to discuss the human connections such as university ties
seen within primary documents to support learning of the nature of science. Additional
research may also compare benefits of learning across a set of conditions including (a)
pairing discussion with analysis of letters, (b) only including discussion, and (c) only
conducting analysis of the letters. This research would further highlight the role of
analyzing primary resources in the development of new understandings.
In this study, preservice elementary teachers’ written analysis of historical documents
contributed to understanding about the impact of these types of resources on nature of science
understanding. The study was guided by the research question: To what extent can preservice,
undergraduate, elementary teachers make inferences about nature of science from historical,
primary accounts of Darwin’s work? We found that these historical letters contributed to
students’ understanding of the empirical and sociocultural nature of science. With the
appropriate instructional and pedagogical supports described, students demonstrated
knowledge of the historical context of Darwin’s work and the social enterprise of
science illustrated through that work.
A. W. Lorsbach et al.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice:
Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–436.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Tuan, H.
L. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.
Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity based
approach on elementary teachers' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
37(4), 295–317.
Akerson, V. L., Buzzelli, C. A., & Donnelly, L. A. (2008). Early childhood teachers' views of nature of science:
The influence of intellectual levels, cultural values, and explicit reflective teaching. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 45(6), 748–770.
Ayala, F. (2009). Darwin and the scientific method. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
106(Supplement 1), 10033–10039.
Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Malzahn, K. A., Plumley, C. L., Gordon, E. M., & Hayes, M. L. (2018). Report of
the 2018 NSSME+. Chapel Hill: Horizon Research, Inc.
Bell, R. L., Mulvey, B. K., & Maeng, J. L. (2016). Outcomes of nature of science instruction along a context
continuum: Preservice secondary science teachers’ conceptions and instructional intentions. International
Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 493–520.
Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about nature of science: Are they
happening? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 497–526.
Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642.
Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act in sociology: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. London:
Butterworths.
Derry, G. N. (2002). What science is and how it works. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Fawcett, H. (1861). A popular exposition of Mr. Darwin on the origin of species. Macmillan’s Magazine, 3, 81–
92.
Fouad, K. E., Masters, H., & Akerson, V. L. (2015). Using history of science to teach nature of science to
elementary students. Science & Education, 24(9–10), 1103–1140.
Harrison, P. (2016). What was historical about natural history? Contingency and explanation in the science of
living things. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 58, 8–16.
Jacobs, S. (1991). John Stuart mill on induction and hypotheses. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 29(1), 69–
83.
Kampourakis, K. (2016). The Bgeneral aspects^ conceptualization as a pragmatic and effective means to
introducing students to nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 667–682.
Kampourakis, K., & McComas, W. F. (2010). Charles Darwin and evolution: Illustrating human aspects of
science. Science & Education, 19(6–8), 637–654.
Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry oriented
instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7),
551–578.
Lederman, N. G. (2004). Syntax of Nature of Science within Inquiry and Science Instruction. In L. B. Flick & N.
G. Lederman (Eds.) Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science (pp. 301–317). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.),
Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G.
Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Abingdon: Routledge.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science
questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.
The Correspondence of Charles Darwin as a Tool for Reflecting on Nature...

Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. A., Antink Meyer, A., & Schwartz, R. (2014).
Meaningful assessment of learners’ understandings about scientific inquiry—The views about scientific
inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 65–83.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Macleod, C. (2017). John Stuart mill. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring
2017 ed.) https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/mill/.
Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science to features of science. In M. S. Khine (Ed.),
Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht: Springer.
McComas, W. F. (Ed.). (1998). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science &
Education, 17, 249–263.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts,
and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Niaz, M. (2009). Progressive transitions in chemistry teachers’ understanding of nature of science based on
historical controversies. Science & Education, 18, 43–65.
Osborne, J. F., Simon, S. & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards Science: A review of the literature and its
implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049–1079.
Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an
authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry.
Science Education, 88(4), 610–645.
Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. (2008). A multi-year program developing an explicit reflective pedagogy for
teaching pre-service teachers the nature of science by ostention. Science & Education, 17(2), 219–248.
Strauss, A., & Corbin. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing
grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

You might also like