Science & Education (2019) 28:249–267

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00030-8

SI: NATURE OF SCIENCE

Contextualizing the Relationship Between Nature of Scientific

Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry
Implications for Curriculum and Classroom Practice

Norman G. Lederman 1

Published online: 12 February 2019

# Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Abstract
How nature of scientific knowledge (NOSK) or nature of science (NOS) and scientific inquiry
(SI) are contextualized, or related to each other, significantly impacts both curriculum and
classroom practice, specifically with respect to the teaching and learning of NOSK. NOS and
NOSK are considered synonymous here, with NOSK more accurately conveying the meaning
of the construct. Three US-based science education reform documents are used to illustrate the
aforementioned impact. The USA has had three major reform documents released over a period
of 20 years. The Benchmarks for Science Literacy was the first in 1993, followed by the
National Science Education Standards (NSES) in 1996, and the newest, the Next Generation
Science Standards (NGSS), was released in 2013. NOS or NOSK was strongly emphasized and
given a prominent position in the first two, while the NGSS has marginalized the construct. It is
categorized as a set of connections (with no specific standards or performance expectations) that
can be made to some of the Science Practices or Crosscutting Ideas. However, a careful
conceptual analysis of how the NGSS positions NOSK/NOS relative to the previous reform
documents reveals a complex situation related to how NOSK/NOS is contextualized and
apparent assumptions about how NOSK/NOS is best taught and learned. A historical review
of how NOSK/NOS is contextualized reveals a longstanding confusion concerning the rela-
tionship between NOSK/NOS and SI as well as about how the reform documents seem to
assume how it can be best taught to students. The assumptions often run contrary to the
empirical research on the teaching and learning of NOSK as well as call into question the
ability of the NGSS to promote the perennial science education goal of scientific literacy.

1 Introduction

The relationship and differences between nature of scientific knowledge (NOSK) and scientific
inquiry (SI) are often discussed and confused within existing literature (Lederman and Lederman

* Norman G. Lederman
ledermann@iit.edu

1
Illinois Institute of Technology, 3424 S. State St., Suite 4007, Chicago, IL 60616, USA
250 N. G. Lederman

2014). NOSK, as opposed to the more popular phrase of nature of science (NOS), is used here to
be more consistent with the original meaning of the construct (Lederman 2007). Nature of
scientific knowledge was the original phrase used to describe the characteristics of scientific
knowledge, as necessarily derived from the scientific inquiry process through which the knowl-
edge was developed (SI). In recent years, Nature of Scientific Inquiry (NOSI) has also been
emphasized and this refers to knowledge about SI. During the early 1970s, the phrase Bnature of
scientific knowledge^ was reduced to Bnature of science^ (Lederman 2007). It is speculated that
this change in phrasing became the root cause of the continued, to this day, conflation of NOS and
SI. Hence, the label of NOSK is used here to more accurately communicate what is meant by
NOS. NOSK and NOS have always been synonymous and refer to the characteristics of scientific
knowledge, which are intimately related to, but distinct from, how the knowledge is developed
(i.e., SI). The change in phrasing here is not meant to muddy the waters. Rather, it is meant to be
more accurate in communicating the meaning of the construct historically referred to as NOS.
NOSK and SI are central to reform documents throughout the world, and the focus here is on
how the contextualization of these constructs has significant implications for teaching practices
and curricula, specifically with respect to SI. It is important to note that Bcontextualization^
refers to how NOSK and SI are related to each other, not how either is related to subject matter
knowledge in standards. That is, is NOSK considered to be a subset of SI or is SI considered to
be a subset of NOSK? It is also important to note that the Next Generation Science (NGSS) is
not a mandatory national curriculum. It is just a guide for curriculum and instruction. This
further exacerbates the problem created by the contextualization of NOSK that is discussed
throughout this article. As discussed later, the NGSS does not include NOSK in any of its
performance expectations, which marginalizes its importance since understandings are not
expected to be assessed and make it less likely for teachers to explicitly address NOSK.
The NGSS from the USA is simply used here as a concrete illustration of the problem. It is
certainly not the only reform document of importance throughout the world, but it is focused upon
here because of its recent release and international influence. Additionally, the NGSS, when
compared to previous USA reform documents, clearly illustrates the changing contextualization
of NOSK and SI and how NOSK has been marginalized in a manner that is inconsistent with the
empirical literature on the teaching of NOSK. Before discussing the role of NOSK in the NGSS
and in previous reform documents, a historical perspective of the emergence of NOSK as an
important educational outcome, prior to recent reform documents, is important to consider. It is
important to note that there is currently much discussion about the specific components of NOSK
(Erduran and Dagher 2014; Lederman 2007). The focus here is not to dwell on developing a
definitive definition of NOSK. Rather, of importance here is how NOSK and SI are contextualized
and the implications of this relationship for curricula and classroom practices.
Following is a discussion of how NOSK and SI became viewed as critical outcomes of science
education. This history culminates in how they are defined in the NGSS. This historical account is
critical to our understanding of how NGSS currently views NOSK and SI. There is no attempt to
definitively define NOSK or SI, but rather to explicate how the NGSS defines NOSK and SI.

2 The Roots of Nature of Scientific Knowledge As an Important Outcome

in Science Education

Although the construct of NOSK was first discussed as early as 1907 (Central Association of
Science and Mathematics Teachers 1907), research on understandings of the construct was not
Contextualizing the Relationship Between Nature of Scientific Knowledge... 251

pursued in earnest until the late 1950s (Mead and Metraux 1957). Research in the area
increased exponentially since the 1960s to the present, following the seminal work of Cooley
and Klopfer (1963). There is no need to review the plethora of research concerning teachers’
and students’ understandings of NOSK, given the purpose of the present discussion, but for
those who are interested, comprehensive reviews of this literature can be found in Lederman
(2007) and Lederman and Lederman (2014). Although NOSK has been viewed as an
important educational outcome for science students for over 100 years, it was Showalter’s
(1974) work that galvanized NOSK as an important construct within the overarching frame-
work of scientific literacy. Admittedly, the phrase scientific literacy had been discussed by
numerous others before Showalter (Dewey 1916; Hurd 1958; National Education Association
1918, 1920; Blough 1960, among others). However, it was his work that clearly delineated the
dimensions of scientific literacy in a manner that could easily be translated into objectives for
science curricula. Showalter’s framework consisted of the following seven components
(Showalter 1974, pp. 1–6):

& Nature of science: the scientifically literate person understands the nature of scientific
knowledge.
& Concepts in science: the scientifically literate person accurately applies appropriate science
concepts, principles, laws, and theories in interacting with his universe.
& Processes of science: the scientifically literate person uses processes of science in solving
problems, making decisions, and furthering his own understanding of the universe.
& Values: the scientifically literate person interacts with the various aspects of the universe in
a way that is consistent with the values that underlie science.
& Science society: the scientifically literate person understands and appreciates the joint
enterprise of science and technology and the interrelationships of these with each other and
with other aspects of society.
& Interest: the scientifically literate person has developed a richer, more satisfying, and more
exciting view of the universe as a result of his science education and continues to extend
this education throughout his life.
& Skills: the scientifically literate person has developed numerous manipulative skills asso-
ciated with science and technology.

NOSK and science processes (now known as inquiry or practices) were clearly emphasized in
Showalter’s work. The attributes of a scientifically literate individual were later reiterated by
the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA 1982). The NSTA dimensions of scientific
literacy were a bit expanded from Showalter’s. A scientifically literate person was thus
considered to be one who (NSTA 1982):

& Uses science concepts, process skills, and values making responsibly everyday decisions;
& Understands how society influences science and technology as well as how science and
technology influence society;
& Understands that society controls science and technology through the allocation of
resources;
& Recognizes the limitations as well as the usefulness of science and technology in advanc-
ing human welfare;
& Knows the major concepts, hypotheses, and theories of science and is able to use them;
& Appreciates science and technology for the intellectual stimulus they provide;
252 N. G. Lederman

& Understands that the generation of scientific knowledge depends on inquiry process and
conceptual theories;
& Distinguishes between scientific evidence and personal opinion;
& Recognizes the origin of science and understands that scientific knowledge is tentative,
and subject to change as evidence accumulates;
& Understands the application of technology and the decisions entailed in the use of
technology;
& Has sufficient knowledge and experience to appreciate the worthiness of research and
technological developments;
& Has a richer and more exciting view of the world than before as a result of science
education; and
& Knows reliable sources of scientific and technological information and uses these sources
in the process of decision-making.

Of particular importance to the argument made, here is the juxtaposition of NOSK and SI as it
has evolved over the years, resulting in their current relationship in the NGSS. Within
Showalter’s delineated dimensions of scientific literacy, SI and NOSK were viewed as
separate, but intimately related constructs. Students were expected to possess knowledge of
NOSK and competency in the performance of scientific processes/inquiry.

3 The Emergence of the Benchmarks for Science Literacy

The Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS 1993) continued the emphasis on the importance
of scientific inquiry and NOSK. An interesting point is that the phrase Bscience literacy^ as
opposed to Bscientific literacy^ was used in this reform document. Most readers perceived these
two phrases as synonymous, but they are not. In general, science literacy refers more to one’s
mastering of scientific knowledge and science processes, while scientific literacy expands on
the former by stressing the use of scientific knowledge to make informed decisions with respect
to personal, societal, and global issues. The differences are related, but not critically important
to the argument presented here. For those who are interested, a good explication of the
differences can be found in Roberts (2007) and Roberts and Bybee (2014).
Although the Benchmarks claimed to be advocating science instruction that provided an
integrated view of the scientific enterprise, it was presented as a set of 12 separate chapters. With
the exception of the chapter on Common Themes (and perhaps Habits of Mind), there was little
attempt to provide links across the chapters. Nature of science (now referred to here as NOSK)
was the first chapter in the reform document, and scientific inquiry was presented as a subtopic
along with Bthe scientific world view^ and Bthe scientific enterprise.^ There are two important
observations that can be made about the Benchmarks’ positioning of NOSK. The conflation of
NOSK and SI, a problem that still exists (Peters-Burton 2014; Salter and Atkins 2014) is clear as
SI was considered to be a subset of NOSK. Consequently, the development of scientific
knowledge was not clearly differentiated from the characteristics of the knowledge. For sure,
they are intimately related since the characteristics of the knowledge (NOSK) are inherently
derived from the way in which the knowledge was developed. There are those who claim that it is
not useful, or even inaccurate, to distinguish between NOSK and inquiry (e.g., Duschl and
Grandy 2013), and they inappropriately claim that Lederman (2007) and others insist the two are
distinct and not related. It is possible that the confusion between NOSK and scientific inquiry was
Contextualizing the Relationship Between Nature of Scientific Knowledge... 253

created when the original phrase nature of scientific knowledge was shortened to nature of
science in the early 1980s. Indeed, one of the more popular and early assessments of NOSK
(Rubba and Andersen 1978) was titled the BNature of Scientific Knowledge Scale.^ It is for this
reason that the abbreviation of NOSK is used here as opposed to NOS.
A second observation is that NOSK was presented separately from the other important
student outcomes. It could be argued that NOSK would have better been placed in the
Common Themes outcomes. In any case, NOSK is still presented as a separate domain of
knowledge. Consequently, it was at least implied that NOSK could or should be taught
separately from the other science outcomes. Indeed, it is not uncommon for science teachers
to begin the school year with a unit (or several days) dedicated to NOSK and it is fairly typical
for science textbooks that address NOSK to have a first chapter on NOSK.

4 The National Science Education Standards BReplace^ the Benchmarks

In 1996, the National Science Education Standards (NSES) Breplaced^ the Benchmarks as the
primary reform document in the USA. Replaced has been used parenthetically because there
are still many schools and school districts in the USA and around the world that still prefer the
Benchmarks as their curricular framework for science education. Indeed, AAAS continues to
provide materials related to the Benchmarks. Regardless, it is surprising that after only 3 years,
the USA found it necessary to rethink their vision and develop new standards for science
education. Given that the Benchmarks was a K-12 framework for reform, one would think that
it would take at least 12 years of verifiable implementation/enactment for a valid assessment to
be completed. Perhaps, the decision was political (i.e., The American Association for the
Advancement of Science and the National Academies of Sciences), but it certainly was not an
empirical decision because the Benchmarks were not implemented in classrooms long enough
to collect the necessary data on their effectiveness.
The NSES (NRC 1996) situated NOSK as a separate domain of knowledge. Similar to the
Benchmarks, there were standards for Unifying Themes and Processes, but NOSK (along with
history of science) and SI were treated in separate standards, although closely related. Although
the NSES did a good job of disentangling the conflation of NOSK and SI, the reader was still left
with the impression that NOSK could/should be taught as a separate domain of knowledge. That
is, the NSES was formatted into separate content standards chapters/sections. It can be argued that
the NSES was an improvement from the Benchmarks because it recognized that NOSK and SI
should be considered as subject matter alongside traditional life, earth and space, and physical
science content. In retrospect, although the NSES did separate SI and NOS into two different
domains of knowledge, neither the Benchmarks nor the NSES effectively communicated their
visions of an integrated approach to the teaching of science. Regardless of this difference, one was
hard-pressed to see NOSK being taught effectively in our science classrooms at any grade level.
Nothing was/is really any different today than it was since science educators seriously began
studying NOSK in the late 1950s (see Lederman and Lederman 2014).

5 Unveiling of the Next Generation Science Standards

With much anticipation and fanfare, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were
made public in 2013 (NGSS Lead States 2013). They were based on the theoretical rationale
254 N. G. Lederman

presented in A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and
Core Ideas (NRC 2012). The NGSS strongly emphasizes an integrated approach to science
teaching and learning across three dimensions: Science and Engineering Practices, Disciplin-
ary Core Ideas, and Crosscutting Ideas. The latter is clearly the most attentive to themes that
run across all sciences, but the idea is that a concerted effort should be made in order to include
all three dimensions in all instructional planning and instruction. Most important to the present
discussion is that the NGSS positions NOSK as a subset of the dimensions of Science Practices
and Crosscutting Concepts. Specifically, NOSK is considered to be constituted by eight
understandings. Those understandings related to Science Practices are:

& Scientific investigations use a variety of methods

& Scientific knowledge is based on empirical evidence
& Scientific knowledge is open to revision in light of new evidence
& Science models, laws, mechanisms, and theories explain natural phenomena

whereas those understandings associated with Crosscutting Concepts are:

& Science is a way of knowing

& Scientific knowledge assumes an order and consistency in natural systems
& Science is a human endeavor
& Science addresses questions about the natural and material world

There was a need for further clarification of the NGSS vision with respect to a variety of issues,
one of which was the lack of emphasis on NOSK. Hence, Appendix H was written in an attempt
to appease the professional communities’ (e.g., National Science Teachers Association) con-
cerns about NOSK. It is odd to see eight aspects of NOSK delineated in the NGSS, given the
following statement in Appendix H, BIndeed, the only consistent characteristic of scientific
knowledge across the disciplines is that scientific knowledge itself is open to revision in light of
new evidence^ (Appendix H, p.96). The only reasonable speculation about this inconsistency is
that this is a common symptom of documents that are written by a committee. The distribution
of ideas commonly associated with NOSK is divided across the two dimensions in a manner
that, once again, conflates SI and NOSK. So, in one way, there has been a step back to the
conflation noted in the Benchmarks. However, the way NOSK has been situated, in the NGSS,
is a bit more complex. That is, NOSK is positioned as a subset of Science Practices (i.e., the
doing of science); however, understandings about inquiry/practices (NOSI) are positioned as a
subset of NOSK. The NSES was prominent in its recognition that there was a difference
between outcomes concerning students Bdoing^ of science (e.g., observing, inferring, conclud-
ing, etc.) and knowledge Babout^ inquiry (NOSI). The NGSS has placed the doing of science as
part of the Practices and the knowledge about inquiry as a subset of NOSK.
On the positive side, the treatment of NOSK as a separate domain of knowledge in both the
Benchmarks and NSES is not evident in the NGSS. Half of the eight references to NOSK are
included within the dimension of Crosscutting Concepts, and the other half are within the
dimension of Science and Engineering Practices. Consistent with the integrated vision of the
NGSS, NOSK has been integrated within the subject matter outcomes as opposed to being a
separate domain of knowledge. This definitely implies a curricular direction that was not
achieved by either the Benchmarks or NSES. Presumably, there will be no attempt to have
teachers develop separate units or lessons for NOSK. However, a serious concern has been
Contextualizing the Relationship Between Nature of Scientific Knowledge... 255

created. NOSK, in each of the dimensions to which it is assigned, is merely mentioned as a

Bconnection^ that teachers can make as opposed to an explicit standard. Students’ understand-
ings of NOSK have no stated performance expectations and so there is no reason to believe
that understandings of NOS will be explicitly taught or assessed. It is well established that
teachers typically do not teach what is not assessed (Dwyer 1998). Overall, in the NGSS,
NOSK is relegated to the position of a connection, which teachers may choose to make or not.
There is no real encouragement for teachers to embed NOSK in NGSS aligned lessons.
The conflation of NOSK and SI (in this case, Practices) remains problematic in terms of
what students are expected to know or do as a result of their K-12 science education. The
NGSS standards for Science and Engineering Practices are:

& Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering)
& Developing and using models
& Planning and carrying out investigations
& Analyzing and interpreting data
& Using mathematics and computational thinking
& Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering)
& Engaging in arguments from evidence
& Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information

The NGSS standards for Crosscutting Concepts are:

& Patterns
& Cause and effect
& Scale, proportion, and quantity
& Systems and system models
& Energy and matter
& Structure and function
& Stability and change

With respect to Practices, it is obvious that the outcomes are things that students are able to do.
No doubt these are important, but understandings of NOSK are cognitive understandings, not
performance outcomes. Although it has long been intuitively assumed that there is a relation-
ship between Bdoing science (SI)^ and Bunderstandings about science (NOSK),^ the empirical
research for the last three decades has clearly indicated that this is a false assumption
(Lederman 2007; Lederman and Lederman 2014). With respect to the Crosscutting Concepts,
the outcomes listed are cognitive understandings, but it is unclear how the ideas listed are
specific to NOSK or SI. Certainly, they are related, but not specifically related.
In the end, the instructional or curricula question/problem is that if students demonstrate the
abilities specified in the Practices and understandings specified in the Crosscutting Concepts, will
they have understood NOSK? Overall, students are expected to demonstrate the ability to Bdo^ SI/
practices and some understanding of overarching themes in science, but the specified outcomes
are not focused on students’ understandings of the characteristics of scientific knowledge as
directly derived from how the knowledge is developed. Without any explicit standards or
performance expectations for NOSK (i.e., only connections are specified), it appears that the
writers of the NGSS and its framework (NRC 2011) have assumed that students will come to
understand NOS simply by engaging in science practices and learning about crosscutting
256 N. G. Lederman

concepts. However, the overwhelming body of empirical research, as reported in the following
comprehensive reviews of the empirical literature, indicates that students will not develop
informed views of NOSK if it is not explicitly integrated into instruction (Abd-El-Khalick and
Lederman 2000; Lederman 2007; Lederman and Lederman 2014). BExplicit^ should not be
mistakenly considered as synonymous with direct instruction, as some have previously assumed
(Duschl and Grandy 2013). It simply means that NOSK is brought to the forefront at various times
during instruction through discussions and reflections among the students. Bringing NOSK to the
forefront during instruction goes well beyond the teacher simply pointing out aspects of NOSK
when appropriate, but rather involves students reflecting on their experiences as they struggle with
developing science understandings as they engage with phenomena. A concrete instructional
example, which has been used with students, should serve to reinforce the stated concern.

6 The Mystery Bone Activity

This activity/experience actually takes 3–4 days (depending on students’ grade level) and is
ideal for a biology or life science course while evolution, natural selection, and form and
function are discussed. The activity has actually been used by teachers in high school and
middle school classes across the USA as well as several European and Asian countries. The
overall focus is on evolution, along with form and function, as opposed to the less useful
memorization of bones and their locations. The activity can be used in high school or middle
school and contributes to specific NGSS standards in Table 1:
As students learn about evolution and the skeletal system, they could learn about various
aspects of NOSK as well. In particular, the ideas that scientific knowledge is tentative, a
function of human creativity and subjectivity, derived from observations and inferences, and

Table 1 Relevant middle and high school NGSS Standards

Middle school High school

Middle school-learning strand 4: natural selection and High school-learning strand 4: biological evolution:
adaptations unity and diversity
Performance expectation LS4–1: analyze and interpret Performance expectation LS4–1: communicating
data for patterns in the fossil record that document scientific information that common ancestry and
the existence, diversity, extinction, and change of life biological evolution are supported by multiple lines
forms throughout the history of life on Earth under of empirical evidence
the assumption that natural laws operate today as in Performance expectation LS4–2: construct an
the past. explanation based on evidence that the process of
Performance expectation LS4–2: apply scientific ideas evolution primarily results from four factors: (1) the
to construct an explanation for the anatomical potential for a species to increase in number, (2) the
similarities and differences among modern heritable genetic variation of individuals in a species
organisms and between modern and fossil organisms die to mutation and sexual reproduction, (3) com-
to infer evolutionary relationships. petition for limited resources, (4) the proliferation of
Science and engineering practices: analyzing and those organisms that are better able to survive and
interpreting data and constructing explanations reproduce in the environment
Disciplinary core ideas: evidence of common ancestry Science and Engineering Practices: analyzing and
and diversity, natural selection, and adaptation interpreting data, constructing explanations,
Crosscutting concepts: patterns, cause and effect engaging in argument from evidence, and obtaining,
evaluating, and Communicating evidence
Disciplinary core ideas: evidence of common ancestry
and diversity, natural selection, and adaptation
Crosscutting concepts: patterns, cause and effect
Contextualizing the Relationship Between Nature of Scientific Knowledge... 257

an understanding that scientific investigations can take a variety of forms as opposed to a

single scientific method can all be conceptually understood by students through their experi-
ence with this activity. However, as presented here, engagement of students in reflections on
their thinking and behaviors and student-centered discussions about NOSK discussions have
been removed. The purpose is to illustrate how an NGSS-aligned experience can miss the
opportunity to also teach about NOSK and SI because NOSK has been marginalized/situated
as possible connections that teachers could make.
Grade level: middle, and high school
Prerequisite knowledge: minimal knowledge of skeletal systems
Instructional scenario:

1. On the first day that students begin their study of evolution and skeletal systems, they are
given an owl pellet (see Fig. 1). Students are asked to work in pairs as they dissect the
bones from the owl pellet. Owl pellets are indigestible food (i.e., bones and hair)
regurgitated by barn owls several times a day. Since bones are not digestible by the owls,
they are embedded within the pellets (Fig. 2).
2. After all the bones are removed from the pellets, the students are asked to sort
the bones into groups of similar ones. After a discussion on the different types of
bone forms, the students are asked to use their knowledge of skeletal systems to
put the bones into a formation that might resemble the skeletal system of a real
animal. Student groups are then asked to defend their positioning of the bones,
that is, why they put the bones together as they did. Following this discussion,

Fig. 1 Owl pellet

258 N. G. Lederman

Fig. 2 Dissected owl pellet

the students are provided with a diagram of a vole (Fig. 3) and asked to match
the bones on the vole diagram to the bones they collected from the owl pellets.
3. The next day, there is a class discussion about the structure/form of the various bones and
their locations in the vole skeleton. Students are asked where the largest and thickest bones
are found and where the smallest and thinnest bones are found. The goal of the discussion
is to have students realize that the structure/form of the various bones is related to their
function and location (e.g., supporting weight, protection, etc.).
4. Following this discussion, the students in groups of 4–5 are given a disarticulated skeleton
of an unidentified animal and their task is to put it together. Students are expected to use
the knowledge of skeletons that they learned from the owl pellet activity to infer the
structure of this new and unidentified animal (see Fig. 4). The disarticulated skeletons are
from rabbits, cats, and minks, and are readily available from any biological supply
company. It is likely that the students will not complete this task before the end of the
class period, so it typically runs over to the next day.
5. The following day, the students complete the assemblage of their skeleton and
another discussion ensues about the structure and functions of the bones in the
skeleton. Students are not expected to identify from which animal the bones
Contextualizing the Relationship Between Nature of Scientific Knowledge... 259

Fig. 3 Vole stick sheet

Fig. 4 Disarticulated skeleton (cat, rabbit, or mink)

260 N. G. Lederman

come, but rather mainly solidify the relationship between the structure and
functions of bones in the skeletal system.
6. The next day, groups of students are given envelopes that have a set of bones, from an extinct
animal, that are represented on laminated paper (see Fig. 5). They are asked to use their
knowledge of skeletal systems to construct the animal’s skeletal system, just as paleobiologists do.
7. Students are encouraged to circulate and view the constructions of other groups out of curiosity
or to help them with their own constructions. As constructions near completion, the teacher can
take pictures of the various constructions with an iPad for later projection on a SMART Board.
8. The constructions of each group are projected for class discussion. Each group explains
the reasons for the placement of the bones in the constructed skeleton. As this is done,
where appropriate, the teacher questions students to elaborate further about their logic
when placing the bones together.
9. The teacher reveals scientists’ construction of the skeleton and also the inferred appear-
ance of the animal with its skin on (see Figs. 6 and 7). Students are typically surprised to
see the placement of the bones extending from the forearm digit of the animal because
they have previously only seen the skeletons of terrestrial animals.
10. The teacher explains that the organism is believed to be one of the first Bdinosaur-like^
animals that could fly (actually glide). Its resemblance to a reptile is emphasized because
dinosaurs, at that time, were believed to be related to reptiles at that time.
11. The students are then informed that during the past decades, scientists have decided that
the bones supporting the wing in Fig. 6 should be moved to the second forearm digit to
better support the wing.
12. Figure 8 is revealed along with Fig. 9.
13. The teacher asks students about the appearance of Fig. 9 as opposed to Fig. 7 The students
quickly notice that Fig. 9 is more birdlike as opposed to looking like a reptile. The teacher
explains that we currently have a better understanding about the relationships among
dinosaurs, reptiles, and birds. If it is a high school class that has studied, or are studying,
evolution, the teacher could ask students why the inferred appearance has changed.

In summary, this activity fits quite nicely within a biology class during the study of vertebrates,
skeletal systems and the form and function of bones, and evolution.

Fig. 5 Mystery bones

Contextualizing the Relationship Between Nature of Scientific Knowledge... 261

Fig. 6 Reconstructed skeleton of Scaphoenathus crassirostris

The described activity clearly engages students in Science Practices, Disciplinary

Core Ideas, and Crosscutting Concepts, as specified at the beginning of the experi-
ence, in an authentic and meaningful manner. The activity as described is well aligned
with the vision of the NGSS or any curriculum that promotes students’ engagement
with authentic and meaningful science activities. The main question to ask is how
262 N. G. Lederman

Fig. 7 One paleontologist’s inference of Scaphoenathus crassirostris with its skin on

well will students develop or reinforce the understandings of NOSK specified in the
NGSS, or any other aspects of NOSK described in the literature. There are obvious,
and not so obvious, places where students could be engaged in discussions that relate
to NOSK. But, will these connections be made by the teachers and students? Since
there are no standards or performance expectations specified for NOSK (or instruc-
tional objectives in a curriculum that is not based on the NGSS), making NOSK
explicit is left up to the whims of the teacher (NGSS Lead States 2013). This is the
concrete impact of how NOSK has been contextualized in the NGSS. Again, without
explicit attention to NOSK, the research clearly indicates that students are not likely
to come to understand NOSK, let alone be able to make use of it in real life
situations. They are likely to learn about the various forms of bones, the various
functions they perform, and how skeletal systems are Bput together^ to the benefit of
the vertebrate in question. Unfortunately, as presented, this activity is a lost opportu-
nity for students to develop their understanding of NOSK. It is typical of a lesson/
activity that simply focuses on doing SI and assumes that students will implicitly
develop understandings of NOSK. What needs to be done by teachers is have students
Contextualizing the Relationship Between Nature of Scientific Knowledge... 263

Fig. 8 Reconstructed skeleton of a Pterosaur sp.

reflect on the activity experienced and ask questions that lead to the discussion of the
appropriate aspects of NOSK.
264 N. G. Lederman

Fig. 9 Another paleontologist’s inference of Pterosaur sp.

The NGSS is an improvement from the Benchmarks and NSES. NOSK and SI are
integrated into the other science outcomes, and it appears that teachers following the
vision of the NGSS will be less likely to teach NOS as a separate topic or unit.
However, the NGSS is a step backward from the previous reform efforts because
there are no clearly stated outcomes or assessments related to NOSK. The NGSS had
the advantage of the much more extensive empirical research base on students’
learning about NOSK than was available to the developers of the Benchmarks and
NSES, but the NGSS framework is not aligned with the research on NOSK.
Contextualizing the Relationship Between Nature of Scientific Knowledge... 265

7 Quo Vadis?

Is this all Bmuch ado about nothing?^ Does the analysis provided here have any
significant implications for science education? Does it really make a difference
whether students learn about NOSK? These are important questions, and it brings
us full circle to the work of NSTA (1982), Showalter (1974), among others. In the
end, we want students to not only learn to perform Science and Engineering Practices,
understand Disciplinary Core Ideas and Crosscutting Concepts, but we also want them
to be able to apply what they have learned to make informed decisions about
personal, societal, and global issues. There are certainly strong arguments that can
be made for the value of knowing science in and of itself (Driver et al. 1996). These
are ultimately arguments of the inherent value of education (Green 1971).
Being educated is of value in and of itself, and it is not necessarily a means to a pragmatic
end. Alternatively, scholars such as Bertrand Russell (1940, 1950) went further and felt that
relegating teachers to simply facilitating the development of students’ understandings of the
knowledge, values, and mores of a society was antithetical to what should be the role of the
teacher. He felt that such an approach led to fanaticism and isolation from the global
community. He felt that developing students’ free and critical thinking enhanced and improved
our society. Although written almost 80 years ago, Russell’s ideas of education could not be
more aligned with the goals of developing a scientifically literate public.
It goes without saying that the overwhelming majority of the students in our science classes
will not become professional scientists. Equally true is the recognition that our lives are
impacted by an ever-increasing advancement of scientific and technological knowledge, along
with the personal and societal issues this knowledge brings. Our citizenry needs, and will need,
to be informed consumers of science and make informed decisions on these issues. After
graduation from high school or college, unless an individual pursues a career in a STEM field,
they will probably never perform a formal scientific investigation again. Their decisions will
need to be made based on their ability to make sense of the claims made by the scientific
community. They will need to know how the scientific knowledge behind the issues was
developed and how to weigh the status of the existing evidence. This ability is intimately
connected to individuals’ understanding of SI (not the doing of scientific inquiry) and NOSK
(Sadler et al. 2004; Walker and Zeidler 2003; Zeidler et al. 2002). In the NGSS, understandings
of SI are included within the construct of NOSK, and are presently just connections that a
teacher can help students make. They are not standards, and there are no outcomes to be
assessed.
In summary, how SI and NOSK are contextualized and related has significant implications
for curriculum outcomes and instructional practice. If NOSK is embedded implicitly within an
SI focus, instruction will focus on students doing SI and NOSK will be learned by chance, if
learned at all. Although the NGSS has progressed from the conflation and isolated attention to
SI and NOSK, they represent a step backward in terms of what empirical research tells us
about how students come to learn about NOSK and become scientifically literate. The shifting
contextualization of SI and NOSK in the reform efforts in the USA was used as an example,
but the concern applies to reforms and curricula worldwide.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest The author declares no conflict of interest.

266 N. G. Lederman

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

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science:
A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A project 2061
report. New York: Oxford University Press.
Blough, G. (1960). Developing science programs in the elementary schools. In N. Henry (Ed.) Rethinking
science education: the 59th yearbook of the National Society for the Study Of Education Part I (pp. 112–
135). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Central Association of Science and Mathematics Teachers. (1907). A consideration of the principles that should
determine the courses in biology in the secondary schools. School Science and Mathematics, 7(3), 241–247.
Cooley, W. W., & Klopfer, L. (1963). The history of science cases for high schools in the development of student
understanding of science and scientists. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 33–47.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young peoples’ images of science. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education,
22(9), 2109–2139.
Dwyer, C. A. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning: Theory and practice. Assessment in Education., 5(1),
131–137.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Green, T. F. (1971). The activities of teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Hurd, P. D. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16, 13–16.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.),
Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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 (Vol. II, pp. 600–620). New
York: Routledge.
Mead, M., & Metraux, R. (1957). Image of the scientist among high school students. Science, 126, 384–390.
National Education Association. (1918). Cardinal principles of secondary education: A report of the commission
on the reorganization of secondary education. (U.S. Bureau of Education Bulletin no. 35). Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Education Association. (1920). Reorganization of science in secondary schools: A report of the
commission on the reorganization of secondary education. (U.S. Bureau of Education Bulletin no. 20).
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts,
and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts,
and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165.
National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980s.
Washington, DC: Author.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Peters-Burton, E. (2014). Is there a Bnature of stem^? School Science and Mathematics, 114(3), 99–101.
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of
research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In N. G.
Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 545–558). New
York: Routledge.
Rubba, P., & Andersen, H. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students’
understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449–458.
Russell, B. (1940). The functions of a teacher. Harpers Magazine, June, 11–16.
Contextualizing the Relationship Between Nature of Scientific Knowledge... 267

Russell, B. (1950). Unpopular essays. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc..
Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of nature of science in
response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387–409.
Salter, I. Y., & Atkins, L. J. (2014). What students say versus what they do regarding scientific inquiry. Science
Education, 98(1), 1–35.
Showalter, V. M. (1974). What is unified science education? Program objectives and scientific literacy. Prism,
2(3–4), 1–6.
Walker, K. A. & Zeidler, D.L. (2003). Students understanding of the nature of science and their reasoning on
socioscientific issues: A web-based learning inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of National
Association of research in science teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
Zeidler, D., Walker, K., Ackett, W., & Simmons, M. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science
and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343–367.