Republic of the Philippines

CENTRAL BICOL STATE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE

San Jose, Pili, Camarines Sur 4418
ISO 9001:2015 www.cbsua.edu.ph
TÜV-R 01 100 1934918

COLLEGE OF DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION

Learning Module in
TEACHING SCIENCE IN THE
INTERMEDIATE GRADE
(Physics and Earth and space)
WEEK 2
This learning module belongs to:

Herlyn Mae C. Bautista

(Name of Student)

Zone 2, Pawili, Pili, Camarines Sur

(Address)

09163038246/ herlynmae.bautista@cbsua.edu.ph
(Contact Number/email)

This learning module is prepared by:

REY-MARK G. BASAGRE
____________________________________________________
Instructor 1

Teacher’s Note

0
To All Students:

We are facing a big challenge right now and this challenge affects all sectors including
education. While fighting the battle against Covid-19, we will continue to learn using the
flexible mode of instruction. I crafted this module to help you learn the lessons for your grade
level while you are staying at your home.

We pray that this challenge will be over very soon. You need to keep healthy and keep
learning while staying in the comfort of your home.

God Bless you!

Truly yours,

Sir Rey-Mark

Table of Contents
Module Parts and Content Page Number
Introduction …………………………………………………
Pre-Assessment………………………………………………
Learning Resources ………………………………………..

1
 Explore…………………………………………………………..
Discussion Board…………………………………………….
Post-Assessment……………………………………….…….
References………………………………………………………

Introduction

Welcome to week 2 of our course, Teaching Science in the Intermediate Grades (Physics
and Earth Science). For this week we will take about the Nature of Science. To go through
this, we will provide answers to three basic questions: (1) what is the Nature of Science? (2)
why talk about the Nature of Science?, (3) what Constitutes Effective Nature of Science
Instruction? These questions are essential to underpin concepts regarding the topic we have
for this week.

2
There are different task incorporated in this module which you need to do. Also you need to
answer the Pre and post assessment. Good luck and let’s get going.

Pre-Assessment

For our topic, Nature of Science, Please fill out the table below except “L-What did I learn”
which you need to fill out later in the post assessment.

K W H L
What do I know? What do I want to How can I find out What did I learn?
find out? what I want to learn?
Science is a I’d like to find out I need to focus and
systematize body of more about reflect what I learned
knowledge that deals science’s process, about the
with nature’s causes concepts and it’s discussion.
and effects. branches
Skills I expect to use: Observation, Listening, and Comprehension

Learning Resources

What is the Nature of Science?

The phrase ‘‘The Nature of Science’’ (NOS) is often used by science educators to refer to
issues such as what science is, how it works, the epistemological and ontological
foundations of science, how scientists function as a social group and how society influences
and reacts to scientific endeavors. Nature of science (NOS) is a critical component of
scientific literacy that enhances students’ understandings of science concepts and enables
them to make informed decisions about scientifically-based personal and societal issues.

It includes aspects of history, sociology, and philosophy of science, and has variously been
defined as science epistemology, the characteristics of scientific knowledge, and science as
a way of knowing.

3
Scientists share certain basic beliefs and attitudes about what they do and how they view
their work. These have to do with the nature of the world and what can be learned about it.

Scientific Ideas Are Subject To Change

Science is a process for producing knowledge. The process depends both on making careful
observations of phenomena and on inventing theories for making sense out of those
observations. Change in knowledge is inevitable because new observations may challenge
prevailing theories. No matter how well one theory explains a set of observations, it is
possible that another theory may fit just as well or better, or may fit a still wider range of
observations.

Scientific Knowledge Is Durable

Although scientists reject the notion of attaining absolute truth and accept some uncertainty
as part of nature, most scientific knowledge is durable. The modification of ideas, rather than
their outright rejection, is the norm in science, as powerful constructs tend to survive and
grow more precise and to become widely accepted. For example, in formulating the theory of
relativity, Albert Einstein did not discard the Newtonian laws of motion but rather showed
them to be only an approximation of limited application within a more general concept. (The

4
National Aeronautics and Space Administration uses Newtonian mechanics, for instance, in
calculating satellite trajectories.)

Science Cannot Provide Complete Answers to All Questions

There are many matters that cannot usefully be examined in a scientific way. There are, for
instance, beliefs that—by their very nature—cannot be proved or disproved (such as the
existence of supernatural powers and beings, or the true purposes of life). In other cases, a
scientific approach that may be valid is likely to be rejected as irrelevant by people who hold
to certain beliefs (such as in miracles, fortune-telling, astrology, and superstition). Nor do
scientists have the means to settle issues concerning good and evil, although they can
sometimes contribute to the discussion of such issues by identifying the likely consequences
of particular actions, which may be helpful in weighing alternatives.

Science Is a Complex Social Activity

Scientific work involves many individuals doing many different kinds of work and goes on to
some degree in all nations of the world. Men and women of all ethnic and national
backgrounds participate in science and its applications. These people—scientists and
engineers, mathematicians, physicians, technicians, computer programmers, librarians, and
others—may focus on scientific knowledge either for its own sake or for a particular practical
purpose, and they may be concerned with data gathering, theory building, instrument
building, or communicating. As a social activity, science inevitably reflects social values and
viewpoints.

The direction of scientific research is affected by informal influences within the culture of
science itself, such as prevailing opinion on what questions are most interesting or what
methods of investigation are most likely to be fruitful.

Because of the social nature of science, the dissemination of scientific information is crucial
to its progress. Some scientists present their findings and theories in papers that are
delivered at meetings or published in scientific journals. Those papers enable scientists to
inform others about their work, to expose their ideas to criticism by other scientists, and, of
course, to stay abreast of scientific developments around the world.

According to scholars and researchers, there are distinguishing features, non-distinguishing

features and myths on the Nature of Science.

Distinguishing features:
1. Scientific knowledge demands empirical evidence (i.e., science is derived from, and
guided by, observation or experiment.
2. Scientific claims are testable/falsifiable. Popper (1968) suggested that only ideas that
are potentially falsifiable are scientific ideas. Hence, a term like creation science is an
oxymoron, because the notion that fully-formed species were placed on Earth by some
supernatural force is a religious belief and not part of the scientific paradigm, because it
cannot be tested/falsified.
3. Scientific tests or observations are repeatable.
4. Scientific knowledge is tentative and developmental, and hence fallible.

5
While this statement is true, in an overall sense, it does hide much detail and is
consequently potentially misleading. There are different degrees of tentativeness associated
with different types of scientific knowledge. We are, for example, rather certain about Boyle’s
law, that copper is a good conductor of electricity, and that the Earth is round rather than flat,
but far less certain about the origins of modern man, that an asteroid caused mass
distinction of the dinosaurs, or that there is no life on Mars. I am quite sure that people who
travel in aero planes, drive over suspension bridges, or take medicines appreciate that some
scientific knowledge is quite reliable!
5. Science is self-correcting.

Non-distinguishing features:
6. Scientific progress is characterized by the invention of, and competition
among, hypotheses/theories.
Wegener’s suggestion that the continents had once been one, and drifted apart, was
regarded at the time as almost lunatic. Groups led by Rutherford and Thompson obtained
very similar results for the scattering of alpha particles by materials, yet they bitterly disputed
the two different models (nuclear and ‘plum pudding,’ respectively) that they proposed for the
structure of The Science Education Review, 1(2), 2002 45 the atom, to the extent that
Rutherford accused a colleague of Thomson with having ‘fudged’ data to support
Thompson’s model.
7. Different scientists can sense the same things, and interpret the same
experimental data, differently.
There have been countless cases of scientists having either not seen certain things or,
based on their expectations, deeming what they did see to be unimportant, leading to the
conclusion that observations are theory-laden. Holton’s (cited in Niaz & Rodríguez, 2002)
examination of Millikan’s handwritten notebooks revealed that, in preparing the crucial paper,
Millikan had discarded the results for 59% of oil drops because they did not support his
hypothesis of the elementary charge. Ehrenhaft, on the other hand, obtained very similar
experimental results and postulated fractional electronic charges.
8. Science cannot provide complete answers to all questions/problems.
This is true, but at the same time science does answer many questions very well indeed.
Science cannot, though, answer moral, ethical, aesthetic, social, and metaphysical
questions, although it may provide some useful insights. It is inappropriate, for example, to
ask science to determine whether or not abortion is acceptable.
9. Science is a social activity, both influencing society and being influenced by
people’s values and opinions.
Personalities, funding, social movements, public opinion, the media, politicians, and others
drive Science.
10. Logic, imagination, curiosity, and serendipity contribute to scientific
exploration.

Myths
Let us now discuss four myths, four widely held yet incorrect ideas about NOS. These
misconceptions are perhaps due to a combination of the way terminology is used by leaders
and others in our communities, the lack of NOS content and real science research
experiences in teacher education, and the shallow treatment of NOS, the omissions of key
aspects of NOS, and the explicit inclusion of faulty ideas about NOS, in school textbooks.

6
Myth 1: A universal scientific method exists. This myth probably stems from the series of
sequential steps, commonly termed the scientific method, which appear in many school
texts, and may also be reinforced by the standardized format used to present articles in
science journals. The steps vary from text to text, but the following are typical: observing,
forming a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, reaching a conclusion/s, and reporting the
work.

Rather than working to a standard research plan, scientists use a multiplicity of ways to
obtain and organise knowledge, including intuition and chance. Newer texts are adopting the
approach of discussing the methods of science, rather than any particular scientific method
alone, and this will assist in overcoming this myth. At the same time, though, the above
steps do appear in the history of most scientific work, even if their order is found to vary.

Myth 2: A hypothesis is an educated guess. The following explains some terms

associated with the progress of science (Baxter & Kurtz, 2001; Eastwell, 1996):

Law (or rule or principle) – a generalised statement which summarises the observed
regularities or patterns in nature (e.g. Charles’ law and Archimedes’ principle).

Hypothesis – a possible explanation for the observed facts and laws (e.g. Bohr’s
hypothesis).

Theory – an explanation, which has stood the test of time and in which we therefore show
much faith (e.g. the kinetic theory of gases and the atomic theory). A theory may be a broad
explanation derived from the convergence of many hypotheses.

Model – a mental picture of, or analogy for, the phenomenon, involving a system which is
well understood and which appears to behave in a similar manner to the system under
consideration (e.g. the particle model of a gas).

Test hypothesis (or test theory) – accomplished by determining whether or not the
hypothesis, or theory, is in accord with new experimental evidence. Experiments are
purposely designed to test a prediction of a hypothesis or theory. The new experimental
evidence is said to either support or refute the hypothesis or theory. If refuted, the
hypothesis or theory may be either modified or abandoned completely. A hypothesis or
theory can never be proven absolutely correct, because subsequent evidence could always
refute it.

Returning to Myth 2, when school students are asked to propose a hypothesis during
experimental work, they are really most often being asked for a prediction, which is different.
A prediction is an educated guess about the expected outcome of a test and is likely to be
factual, and most predictions can be evaluated by observation. Hypotheses, on the other
hand, are possible reasons/explanations for the observations, being stated in a manner that
makes them amenable to testing and falsification. Virtually all contemporary biological
research also incorrectly claims to test hypotheses, when in fact the research describes
patterns rather than testing mechanisms underlying the patterns (McPherson, 2001).

7
Myth 3: Hypotheses become theories, which in turn become laws. A hypothesis might
become a theory, but laws and theories are different kinds of knowledge. While laws
summaries regularities or patterns in nature, theories attempt to explain these generalities.
For example, we have the law of universal gravitation, but presently we do not have a well-
accepted theory of gravity.

Myth 4: Science is a solitary pursuit. Contrary to the view commonly portrayed in texts,
only rarely does a scientific idea arise in the mind of an individual who then also validates
the idea before the scientific community accepts it. Rather, scientists work in teams, and
scientific ideas arise from negotiation. Today, 95% of biology research reports are
multiauthored, compared with 5% a century ago (Hurd, 2001). The awarding of Nobel prizes
to individuals, rather than research teams, may be reinforcing this myth.

Why talk about the Nature of Science?

Perhaps the most basic justification for teaching the nature of science is simply to help
students develop accurate views of what science is, including the types of questions science
can answer, how science differs from other disciplines, and the strengths and limitations of
scientific knowledge (Bell, 2008). However, Driver et al., (1996) have suggested five
arguments supporting the inclusion of the nature of science as a goal of science instruction.
The arguments include that (1) an understanding of the nature of science is necessary if
people are to make sense of the science and manage the technological objects and
processes they encounter, (2) people must understand the NOS “to make sense of socio-
scientific issues and participate in the decision-making process, (3) understanding is
necessary “in order to appreciate science as a major element of contemporary culture, (4)
norms of the scientific community, embodying moral commitments which are of general
value, and (5) supports successful learning of science content”

NOS Knowledge to Enhance Understanding of Science

Understanding how science operates is imperative for evaluating the strengths and
limitations of science, as well as the value of different types of scientific knowledge. For
instance, science teachers may understand the atomic model, Boyle’s law, and evolutionary
theory, but may not understand what law, theory, and model mean in the discipline of
science. Hence, ridiculous statements like, "evolution is only a theory" or "when such-and-
such a theory is proven it will become a law" may result.

NOS to Enhance Interest in Science

A sensitivity to the development of scientific knowledge may also make science itself and
science education more interesting. Incorporating the nature of science while teaching
science content humanizes the sciences and conveys a great adventure rather than
memorizing trivial outcomes of the process. The purpose is not to teach students philosophy
of science as a pure discipline but to help them be aware of the processes in the
development of scientific knowledge (Matthews, 1989). Here we see justification for Driver’s,
(1996) “cultural argument” for learning about the nature of science.

NOS Knowledge to Enhance Decision Making

8
The "democratic argument" for the nature of science instruction (Driver et al., 1996, p. 18)
may be illustrated in a number of ways, but certainly having accurate views about how
science functions is vital for informed decision making. Johnson and Peeples, (1987) found
that as students’ understanding of the nature of science increases, they are more likely to
accept evolutionary theory. Clough, (1994) made several practical suggestions regarding
NOS instruction for reducing students’ conflicts with the theory of evolution. If students and
teachers simply understood the distinction between science and religion, that alone would
ease the occasional tension caused by discussions of evolution.

NOS Knowledge to Enhance Instructional Delivery

Matthews, (1994) has argued for the inclusion of NOS courses in science teacher education
programs. The examples he provided demonstrates that a firm grounding in the nature of
science is likely to enhance teachers’ ability to implement conceptual change models of
instruction. Studying the process of historical conceptual development in science may shed
some light on individual cognitive development (Wandersee, 1986). For example, many
students’ ideas parallel that of early scientific ideas, suggesting that "alternative conceptions"
may sometimes be a better description than "misconceptions." The persistence of students'
naive ideas in science suggests that teachers could use the historical development of
scientific concepts to help illuminate the conceptual journey students must make away from
their own naive misconceptions. In other words, teachers' interest in NOS could assist in
understanding the psychology of students' learning (Matthews, 1994). The history of science
confirms that scientific knowledge is not exclusively determined empirically. The construction
of scientific knowledge (Latour, 1987; Latour & Woolger, 1986; Knorr-Cetina, 1981; Kuhn,
1970; Mendelsohn, 1977; Mulkay & Gilbert, 1982; Shapin, 1982) has much in common with
conceptual change. This makes the nature of science useful as a disequilibrating agent in
changing science teachers' views of learning and teaching. For example, some of the
resistance to conceptual change theory among classroom teachers arises from the mistaken
notion that knowledge of the natural world is completely objective—existing independently of
the searching individual. This view of science gives the impression that learning is a fairly
straightfoward process of replacing what is known with that which the scientific community
has discovered is right. However, the history of science may also reveal a fierce battle to
construct meaning concerning the natural world. This construction, sometimes requiring
enormous effort and time, is not a straightforward process. When science is seen in this
light, children's misconceptions and difficulties in learning contemporary science ideas are
understandable. To assist in this process of inquiry-based or constructivist teaching, Duschl,
(1987) states that teachers themselves need to have an adequate understanding of the
nature of science.

What Constitutes Effective Nature of Science Instruction?

“Science teachers must come to understand just how inquiry is in fact conducted in the
sciences. Until science teachers have acquired a rather thorough grounding in the history
and philosophy of the sciences they teach, this kind of understanding will elude them, in

9
which event not much progress toward the teaching of science as inquiry can be
expected.” (Rutherford, 1964)

Pedagogical Considerations
Contrary to common practice, it is unrealistic to expect students to automatically come to an
understanding of NOS simply by being involved in enquiry activities (Abell, Martini, &
George, 2001; McComas, 1998). This is like expecting students to come to an
understanding of the operation of an internal combustion engine by watching a motor
running, or like giving them the pieces to the left-hand side only of a 1000-word jigsaw
puzzle and hoping they have enough information to get the whole picture (Osborne, 2000).
Rather, there is a need to address NOS explicitly (Moss et al., 2001). This might be achieved
by linking aspects of student activities to NOS, by using specific learning experiences which
address NOS, and by including in science courses stories or case studies about discoveries,
the lives of scientists, and controversies. While there is much literature on the theoretical
aspects of NOS, there is relatively little in the way of strategies to facilitate student learning
about NOS. Such learning experiences may be found in this, and future issues, of SER.

At first glance, teaching about the nature of science can appear esoteric and far removed
from students’ daily experiences. Decades of research on teaching and learning about the
nature of science points to some specific approaches that can make instruction about the
nature of science both more effective and engaging.

Be Explicit

First, it is important to realize that doing hands-on activities is not the same as teaching
about the nature of science. Having students “do science” does not equate to teaching about
the nature of science, even if these activities involve students in high levels of inquiry and
experimentation. Several researchers have addressed this very issue (e.g., Bell, Blair,
Crawford, & Lederman, 2003; Khishfe, & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002) and all have found explicit
instruction to be central to effective nature of science instruction. Learning about the nature
of science requires discussion and reflection on the characteristics of scientific knowledge
and the scientific enterprise—activities students are not apt to engage in on their own, even
when conducting experiments (Bell et al., 2003). In short, research demonstrates that
students will learn what we want them to learn about the nature of science only when they
are taught about it in a purposive manner.

Connect to Context

Keep in mind that purposive instruction is not synonymous with direct instruction. Students
are not likely to develop meaningful understandings of the nature of science simply by
reading a list of nature of science concepts. Instead, students need to experience specific
activities designed to highlight particular aspects of the nature of science. Inquiry activities,
socio-scientific issues, and episodes from the history of science can all be used effectively
as contexts in which to introduce and reinforce nature of science concepts.

Link to Process Skills

10
While there is no single “right” approach, researchers have begun to show that linking the
nature of science to process skills instruction can be effective (Bell, Toti, McNall, & Tai,
2004). Science process skills are a familiar topic for most elementary teachers. At an early
age, students are taught to observe, measure, infer, classify, and predict as part of normal
science instruction. By linking instruction about the nature of science into lessons involving
process skills, students can learn about science as they learn the skills necessary to do
science (Figure 2). Thus, any science process skills lesson is a potential lesson about the
nature of science, provided teachers highlight the connection between the two.

Explore
The Nature of Science
Objectives:

a. To think about the nature of science,

b. To show the importance of being an active participant in the learning process. 

Materials:

Cut out Printed pattern on cardstock paper

Instructions 1:

1. Remove the square mark with X.

2. Arrange the cut out patterns to form a box without the square mark with X.

Guide Question:

How can we connect this activity with the nature of science?

This portray that nature of science can not be complete if there is a missing link and questionable
concepts.

11
 Discussion Board

Now that you’ve read the discussion and perform the activities in the explore
part, it time for you to share your thoughts on the question posted below.

After going through the discussions of the Nature of Science, what does this compel you to
do when you will be in your actual teaching profession?

As an educator disseminating information regarding the nature of science, this discussion

urged me to become explicit in delivering the lesson supported with resilient facts and
evidences to the students through various types of approach to arouse the interest of the
students. I should as well reinforce the discussion with series of first-hand learning
experiences to aid the learning process of the students that will encourage them to
participate in the discussion. I can as well inculcate some useful application of science into
daily routines.

Post-Assessment
A. After going through the lesson, Rewrite your answers on the K, W, K column and fill
out the portion “L-What did I learn”.

K W H L
What do I know? What do I want to How can I find out What did I learn?
find out? what I want to learn?
Science is a I’d like to find out I need to focus and NOS enhances the
systematize body of more about reflect what I learned student’s learnings and
knowledge that deals science’s process, about the understandings on
with nature’s causes concepts and it’s discussion. scientific concepts. It has
and effects. branches different features and
some distinguishing
features and non-
distinguishing.

Skills I expect to use: Observation, Listening, and Comprehension

12
 Scientific
Scientific knowledge
knowledge demands
demands
empirical
empirical

Scientific
Scientific claims
claims are
are
testable/falsifiable.
testable/falsifiable.
Scientific
Scientific Ideas
Ideas Are
Are
Subject
Subject To
To Change
Change Scientific
Scientific tests
tests or
or observations
observations are
are

Science
Enhance
repeatable
repeatable

Knowledge to

Understanding of
Scientific
Scientific knowledge
knowledge isis tentative
tentative
and
and developmental,
developmental, and
and hence
hence

Distinguishing Features
fallible.
fallible.

Science
Science isis self-correcting
self-correcting
Scientific
Scientific Knowledge
Knowledge Is
Is

Science
Durable
Durable
Scientific
Scientific progress
progress isis
characterized
characterized by
by the
the invention
invention of,
of,
and
and competition
competition
among,
among, hypotheses/theories.
hypotheses/theories.

To Enhance Interest in
Different
Different scientists
scientists can
can sense
sense the
the
same
same things,
things, and
and interpret
interpret the
the
same
same

Making
experimental
experimental data,
data, differently.
differently.

Nature of Science
Science
Science Cannot
Cannot Provide
Provide

Knowledge to
Enhance Decision
Complete
Complete Answers
Answers to
to All
All
Questions
Questions Scientific
Scientific knowledge
knowledge isis tentative
tentative
and
and developmental,
developmental, and
and hence
hence
fallible.
fallible.
B. Create your own concept map about the topic “Nature of Science”.

Delivery
Science
Science isis aa social
social activity,
activity, both
both
Non-Distinguishing Features

Knowledge to
influencing
influencing society
society and
and being
being
influenced
influenced byby
Science
Science IsIs aa Complex
Complex people’s
people’s values
values and
and opinions.
opinions.

Enhance Instructional
Social
Social Activity
Activity
Logic,
Logic, imagination,
imagination, curiosity,
curiosity, and
and
serendipity
serendipity contribute
contribute to
to

13
scientific
scientific
exploration.
exploration.
 References

https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/reports/p2061-guide-science.pdf

McComas, W. F. (Ed.). (2006). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and

strategies (Vol. 5). Springer Science & Business Media.

Bell, R. L. (2009). Teaching the nature of science: Three critical questions. Best Practices in Science
Education, 22, 1-6.

14