From FRA to RFN, or How the Family Resemblance Approach Can Be Transformed for Science Curriculum Analysis on Nature of Science

Abstract In this paper, we use the “Family Resemblance Approach” (FRA) as a framework to characterize how scientists view the nature of science (NOS). FRA presents NOS as a “system” that includes clusters or categories of ideas about the cognitive-epistemic and social-institutional aspects of science. For example, the cognitive-epistemic aspects include aims and values such as objectivity and scientific methods such as hypothesis testing. Social-institutional aspects refer to a range of components including social values such as honesty about evidence and institutional contexts of science such as research institutions. Characterized as such, NOS is thus a system of interacting components. The initial account of FRA was proposed by philosophers of science and subsequently adapted and extended for science education including through empirical studies. Yet, there is little understanding of the extent to which FRA coheres with scientists’ own depictions about NOS. Hence, an empirical study was conducted with scientists to investigate their views about FRA as well as their views of NOS using the FRA framework. In so doing, the research sought to explore the utility of FRA from scientists’ point of view. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of 17 Taiwanese scientists’ responses to a set of written questions indicates that scientists are in agreement with the FRA account of NOS, and they detail all aspects in their reference to NOS, although the social-institutional aspects are underrepresented in their depiction. Implications for further studies and science education are discussed.

Download Full-text

THE DEVELOPMENT AND PILOTING OF AN INSTRUMENT TO MEASURE NATURE OF SCIENCE (NOS) UNDERSTANDING

Education and New Developments 2021 ◽

10.36315/2021end114 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Tarisai Chanetsa ◽

◽

Umesh Ramnarain

Keyword(s):

Nature Of Science ◽

Science Teachers ◽

Holistic Approach ◽

Likert Scale ◽

Family Resemblance ◽

Multiple Perspectives ◽

Dynamic Interactions ◽

The Past ◽

The Family ◽

Consensus View

The study describes the development of an instrument, to measure NOS understandings of science teachers and a subsequent pilot study to test the instrument. The pilot measured NOS understanding of two teachers using a questionnaire that had been developed by the researcher. The objective of the study was to construct a questionnaire that could measure NOS understanding based on the family resemblance approach (FRA). The NOS is a construct that has been defined by various scholars and there exists multiple perspectives. For this study, two schools of thought defining the nature of science: the consensus view (CV) and the reconceptualized family resemblance approach to NOS (RFN) were considered. The CV has been widely accepted for years to represent the NOS through its tenets, and there exists reliable tools to document NOS. Based on the CV researchers developed an instrument, views of nature of science (VNOS), to document NOS understanding. In the past decade, scholars have challenged the CV of NOS and highlighted shortcomings in its tenets. FRA was developed that depicts science in a holistic system with dynamic interactions unlike the CV that represents NOS as independent tenets. From FRA, emerged RFN consisting of social and cultural categories that affect how science is done. The approach of RFN due to its holistic approach will be preferred in this study. The authors of RFN developed a RFN questionnaire to assess views about NOS using a Likert scale. Due to the limitations of the Likert scale, an open-ended approach is preferred in the qualitative analysis of views of NOS as is found in the VNOS form. To collect data on NOS understanding, the researcher compared VNOS and the RFN questionnaire and developed an integrated family VNOS (IFVNOS) questionnaire. The IFVNOS questionnaire was administered in a pilot test followed by interviews to elaborate on responses. The responses were analysed by two coders and triangulated to ensure reliability. The responses were allocated codes to document NOS understanding, on a range from naïve to explicit understanding. The findings revealed that the IFVNOS questionnaire developed can be used as a tool to measure NOS understanding and more testing is required to assess reliability.

Download Full-text

Contributions of the Family Resemblance Approach to Nature of Science in Science Education

Science & Education ◽

10.1007/s11191-019-00052-2 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 28 (3-5) ◽

pp. 311-328 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Sibel Erduran ◽

Zoubeida R. Dagher ◽

Christine V. McDonald

Keyword(s):

Science Education ◽

Nature Of Science ◽

Family Resemblance ◽

The Family

Download Full-text

The Family Resemblance of Religions

Returning to Religion ◽

10.5040/9780755625062.ch-002 ◽

2008 ◽

Keyword(s):

Family Resemblance ◽

The Family

Download Full-text

Problems with the Family Resemblance Approach to Conceptualizing Religion

10.1163/9789047427186_023 ◽

2000 ◽

pp. 314-322

Keyword(s):

Family Resemblance ◽

The Family

Download Full-text

The Triple-Point Planet

A World From Dust ◽

10.1093/oso/9780190275013.003.0008 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Ben McFarland

Keyword(s):

Middle English ◽

Family Resemblance ◽

The Moon ◽

The Road ◽

Naked Eye ◽

Third Phase ◽

The Family ◽

The Us ◽

Let's Move ◽

The Difference

Let’s move to a vantage point a little quieter: the surface of the moon. It is so still that Neil Armstrong’s footprints remain undisturbed. The only reason the US flag there appears to “fly” is that a wire holds it up. The moon and Mercury stayed still as Mars, Venus, and Earth moved on down the road of geological development. The moon is a “steady” environment, a word whose Middle English roots are appropriately tangled with the word for “sterile.” Nothing moves on the moon, but in its sky Mars, Venus, and Earth move in their orbits, just as they moved on in complexity 4 billion years ago. Out of the whole solar system, Mars and Venus are the most like Earth in size, position, and composition. Mars is smaller, but Venus could be Earth’s twin in size. If Earth and Venus were separated at birth, then something happened to obscure the family resemblance: liquid water brought life. To chemists, liquid is the third phase of matter, between solid and gas, and its presence made all the difference. Mars gleams a bright blood red even to the naked eye, while Venus is choked with thick yellow bands of clouds. Mars is cold enough to have carbon dioxide snow, while Venus is hot enough to melt tin and boil water. Earth’s blue oceans and green continents provide a bright, primary contrast. These three siblings have drastically different fortunes. At first, they looked the same, colored with black mafic basalt and glowing red magma. The original planets were all so hot that their atmospheres were driven off into space. The oceans and the air came from within. Steam condensed into oceans on each planet’s cool basalt surface. Oceans changed the planet. Water is a transformative chemical, small yet highly charged, seeping into the smallest cracks, dissolving what it can and carrying those things long distances. Venus, Earth, and Mars do not look like the moon because they have been washed in water. Mars is dry now, but the Curiosity rover left no doubt that the red planet was first blue with water.

Download Full-text