Understanding the nature of science (NOS) has emerged as a core curricular goal since at least the 1960s. While science education reforms around the world have shed light on various epistemic and social underpinnings of science, how science curriculum documents portray the nature of other related disciplines such as mathematics and engineering has drawn little attention. Such lack of attention is surprising, given the growing interest among educators in the integrated approach to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and the frequent emphasis on STEM in recent curriculum policy. The study reported in this paper aimed to understand how recent science education reform documents from the USA, Korea and Taiwan compare with regard to their representation of the nature of STEM disciplines. Using the framework of the family resemblance approach (FRA), we present a comparative analysis of three recent science education standards documents to examine their coverage of the epistemic underpinnings of STEM disciplines, particularly with regard to the disciplinary aims, values and practices. The results indicate that the features specific to science and shared by science and engineering were most frequently addressed in the standards documents, whereas mathematics-related features were rarely mentioned. Furthermore, there was variation in the coverage in terms of the nature of STEM disciplines. Based on the findings, we discuss the contributions of the FRA framework in analysing STEM curricula in an interdisciplinary manner and make suggestions for integrating the nature of STEM disciplines in science curriculum documents.

Argumentation, the justification of claims with reasons and/or evidence, has emerged as a significant educational goal in science education in recent years. It has also been noted as an important pedagogical approach in numerous school subjects. Yet, there is limited understanding of how teachers’ views of argumentation and its teaching compare in different school subjects. In order to ensure coherence in the implementation of the school curriculum, it is important to understand such views particularly in the context of subjects that are often positioned to be in conflict with each other, for example in the context of science versus religious education. In this paper, we present an empirical study on how science and religious education teachers view argumentation and its teaching. The data are drawn from a survey of secondary school teachers of 11–16-year-old students in England. Twenty-nine teachers were presented with an online survey in order to collect data on various aspects of their views including pedagogical strategies that support argumentation. Qualitative and quantitative results suggest that teachers of both subjects consider argumentation to be a significant aspect of their subject although particular nuances exist in how the teachers interpret argumentation. Furthermore, the data suggest that there are statistically significant differences in terms of the perceived frequency of pedagogical strategies used to support argumentation in lessons.

Research on nature of science (NOS) have confirmed that students' understanding of NOS is best achieved by explicitly considering NOS a cognitive learning expectation and providing opportunities to reflect on it. However, little has been discussed on how to design and use tasks enhancing students' NOS understanding. In an attempt to fill this gap, we analysed the way NOS tasks are used in seven textbooks for a new subject 'scientific inquiry and experimentation' in Korea. Our analysis of 84 tasks led to three categories being identified: guiding to NOS ideas, expanding NOS understanding and thinking critically about NOS. Whereas the majority of the textbook tasks were used as guides to declarative NOS ideas, few tasks invited students to think critically about controversial aspects of NOS. Most tasks were pointed at the epistemic aspects related to scientific methods or knowledge, while the social aspects of science were seldom addressed. Besides, the number and diversity of NOS tasks varied significantly across different publishers. Based on these findings, we call for more strategic and systemic use of NOS tasks in science textbooks, including the use of diverse tasks in proper manners and sequences, as a crucial step to successful NOS instruction in schools.

Argumentation has emerged as a key area of research and development in science education in recent years. Simply defined, argumentation is about the justification of knowledge claims with evidence and reasons. Although there is now a vast amount of work in argumentation, much research remains to be pursued. Given the interdisciplinary nature of argumentation, the dialogue between science education and other relevant domains can potentially produce constructive research agendas that could profit argumentation research and lead to practical applications. Following an overview of the relevant interdisciplinary investigations that can be pursued in science education, the paper subsequently focuses on the interphase of science and religion. Although science education research has witnessed considerable debate about particular issues related to science and religion such as the teaching and learning of evolution and creationism, the role of argumentation remains an uncharted territory. Hence, the paper focuses on how argumentation may be explored in science and religious education in comparison. Some preliminary observations from the Oxford Argumentation in Religion and Science (OARS) Project are reported including a comparative analysis of curricula and teachers' views. Implications for interdisciplinarity in the context of argumentation in science education are discussed.

Citizens often face problems and dilemmas about which they need to make decisions and choices that impact their everyday lives. Some of these issues are related to science and religion. For example, genetic cloning, nuclear energy and climate change can potentially appeal to moral and religious values as well as scientific knowledge. The ability to coordinate knowledge and values in reaching justified conclusions has thus become increasingly important in contemporary democratic societies. The process of justification of knowledge claims with evidence and reasons is often referred to as 'argumentation'. Curriculum standards of school subjects such as science and religious education (RE) include references to argumentation, and teachers are expected to teach to these standards. Yet, there is often limited opportunity for teachers of conventionally disparate subjects to express their understanding of how argumentation is broadly conceptualised in their own subject and in relation to other school subjects. The primary purpose of this paper is to report an empirical study that investigated how science and RE teachers view the nature of argumentation. The empirical data were drawn from 16 science and 17 RE teachers' responses to survey questions. The findings illustrate how teachers describe both the distinguishing features (e.g. the forms of evidence acceptable for substantiating a claim) and similarities (e.g. the structures and processes of argument construction) of argumentation in science and religious education.