Teaching about nature of science (NOS) is considered as an important goal of science education in various countries. Extensive empirical research about how some aspects of NOS can be effectively taught is also available. The most widely adopted conceptualization of NOS is based on a small number of general aspects of NOS, which fall into two groups: aspects of the nature of scientific knowledge (NOSK) and aspects of scientific inquiry (SI). This conceptualization of NOS will be described in this article as the "general aspects" conceptualization of NOS. Proponents of this conceptualization have concluded from empirical research that particular general aspects of NOS can be effectively taught at various K-12, undergraduate, and teacher preparation courses. Yet, this conceptualization has been criticized as being insufficient and even as misrepresenting science. Critics suggest that a more complete picture of science should be communicated to teachers and students, rather than a list of general aspects of NOS. In this article, I suggest that the "general aspects" conceptualization of NOS provides an effective starting point for teaching about NOS and for addressing students' preconceptions about science. Once this is done, teaching could include more complex aspects and attend simultaneously to multiple contexts, as the critics suggest. This might be achieved along a learning pathway, in which the "general aspects" conceptualization of NOS might nicely pave the way for the "family resemblance" conceptualization of NOS, espoused by several of the critics because of explicit continuities between them. # 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 53: 667-682, 2016

No abstract

This paper reports data from a study aiming to explore secondary students' preconceptions and explanations about evolutionary processes. Students may exhibit both alternative and scientifically acceptable conceptions and bring different ones into play in response to different problem contexts. Hence, the examination of their explanations before instruction within different problem contexts is expected to highlight the concepts that instruction should put more emphasis on. To achieve this, an open-ended questionnaire in conjunction with semi-structured interviews was used to allow students to express their own views on issues related to evolution. Students' explanations highlighted their lack of knowledge of important evolutionary concepts such as common descent and natural selection. In addition, many students explained the origin of traits as the result of evolution through need via purposeful change or as carefully designed adaptations. Rather than evolutionary, final causes formed the basis for the majority of students' explanations. In many cases students provided different explanations for the same process to tasks with different content. It seems that the structure and the content of the task may have an effect on the explanations that students provide. Implications for evolution education are discussed and a minimal explanatory framework for evolution is suggested.

This study aimed to explore secondary students' explanations of evolutionary processes, and to determine how consistent these were, after a specific evolution instruction. In a previous study it was found that before instruction students provided different explanations for similar processes to tasks with different content. Hence, it seemed that the structure and the content of the task may have had an effect on students' explanations. The tasks given to students demanded evolutionary explanations, in particular explanations for the origin of homologies and adaptations. Based on the conclusions from the previous study, we developed a teaching sequence in order to overcome students' preconceptions, as well as to achieve conceptual change and explanatory coherence. Students were taught about fundamental biological concepts and the several levels of biological organization, as well as about the mechanisms of heredity and of the origin of genetic variation. Then, all these concepts were used to teach about evolution, by relating micro-concepts (e.g. genotypes) to macro-concepts (e.g. phenotypes). Moreover, during instruction students were brought to a conceptual conflict situation, where their intuitive explanations were challenged as emphasis was put on two concepts entirely opposed to their preconceptions: chance and unpredictability. From the explanations that students provided in the post-test it is concluded that conceptual change and explanatory coherence in evolution can be achieved to a certain degree by lower secondary school students through the suggested teaching sequence and the explanatory framework, which may form a basis for teaching further about evolution.

Teleology, explaining the existence of a feature on the basis of what it does, is usually considered as an obstacle or misconception in evolution education. Researchers often use the adjective "teleological" to refer to students' misconceptions about purpose and design in nature. However, this can be misleading. In this essay, I explain that teleology is an inherent feature of explanations based on natural selection and that, therefore, teleological explanations are not inherently wrong. The problem we might rather address in evolution education is not teleology per se but the underlying "design stance". With this I do not refer to creationism/intelligent design, and to the inference to a creator from the observation of the apparent design in nature (often described as the argument from design). Rather, the design stance refers to the intuitive perception of design in nature in the first place, which seems to be prevalent and independent from religiosity in young ages. What matters in evolution education is not whether an explanation is teleological but rather the underlying consequence etiology: whether a trait whose presence is explained in teleological terms exists because of its selection for its positive consequences for its bearers, or because it was intentionally designed, or simply needed, for this purpose. In the former case, the respective teleological explanation is scientifically legitimate, whereas in the latter case it is not. What then should be investigated in evolution education is not whether students provide teleological explanations, but which consequence etiologies these explanations rely upon. Addressing the design stance underlying students' teleological explanations could be a main aim of evolution education.