Changes in Pre-service Science Teachers’ Understandings After Being Involved in Explicit Nature of Science and Socioscientific Argumentation Processes

Abstract

The study explored the changes in pre-service science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and their opinions about the nature of science, science teaching and argumentation after their participation in explicit nature of science (NOS) and socioscientific argumentation processes. The participants were 56 third-grade pre-service science teachers studying in a state university in Turkey. The treatment group comprised 27 participants, and there were 29 participants in the comparison group. The comparison group participants were involved in a student-centred science-teaching process, and the participants of the treatment group were involved in explicit NOS and socioscientific argumentation processes. In the study, which lasted a total of 11 weeks, a NOS-as-argumentation questionnaire was administered to all the participants to determine their understanding of NOS at the beginning and end of the data collection process, and six random participants of the treatment group participated in semi-structured interview questions in order to further understand their views regarding NOS, science teaching and argumentation. Qualitative and quantitative data analysis revealed that the explicit NOS and socioscientific argumentation processes had a significant effect on pre-service science teachers’ NOS understandings. Furthermore, NOS, argumentation and science teaching views of the participants in the treatment group showed a positive change. The results of this study are discussed in light of the related literature, and suggestions are made within the context of contribution to science-teaching literature, improvement of education quality and education of pre-service teachers.

Appendix 1: The Nature of Science as Argumentation Questionnaire (NSAAQ)

Read the following pairs of statements and then circle the number on the continuum that best describes your position on the issue described. The numbers on the continuum mean:

• 1 = I completely agree with viewpoint A and I completely disagree with viewpoint B.

• 2 = I agree with both viewpoints, but I agree with viewpoint A more than I agree with viewpoint B.

• 3 = I agree with both viewpoints equally.

• 4 = I agree with both viewpoints, but I agree with viewpoint B more than I agree with viewpoint A.

• 5 = I completely agree with viewpoint B and I completely disagree with viewpoint A.

	Viewpoint A	A	A > B	A = B	B > A	B	Viewpoint B
1	Scientific knowledge describes what reality is really like and how it actually works.	1	2	3	4	5	Scientific knowledge represents only one possible explanation or description of reality.
2	Scientific knowledge should be considered tentative.	1	2	3	4	5	Scientific knowledge should be considered certain.
3	Scientific knowledge is subjective.	1	2	3	4	5	Scientific knowledge is objective.
4	Scientific knowledge does not change over time once it has been discovered.	1	2	3	4	5	Scientific knowledge usually changes over time as the result of new research and perspectives.
5	The concept of “species” was invented by scientists as a way to describe life on earth.	1	2	3	4	5	The concept of “species” is an inherent characteristic of life on earth; it is completely independent of how scientists think.
6	Scientific knowledge is best described as being a collection of facts about the world.	1	2	3	4	5	Scientific knowledge is best described as an attempt to describe and explain how the world works.
7	Scientific knowledge can only be considered trustworthy if the methods, data and interpretations of the study have been shared and critiqued.	1	2	3	4	5	Scientific knowledge can be considered trustworthy if it is well supported by evidence.
8	The scientific method can provide absolute proof.	1	2	3	4	5	It is impossible to gather enough evidence to prove something true.
9	If data was gathered during an experiment it can be considered reliable and trustworthy.	1	2	3	4	5	The reliability and trustworthiness of data should always be questioned.
10	Scientists know that atoms exist because they have made observations that can only be explained by the existence of such particles.	1	2	3	4	5	Scientists know that atoms exist because they have seen them using high-tech instruments.
11	Biases and errors are unavoidable during a scientific investigation.	1	2	3	4	5	When a scientific investigation is done correctly errors and biases are eliminated.
12	A theory should be considered inaccurate if a single fact exists that contradicts that theory.	1	2	3	4	5	A theory can still be useful even if one or more facts contradict that theory.
13	Scientists can be sure that a chemical causes cancer if they discover that people who have worked with that chemical develop cancer more often than people who have never worked that chemical	1	2	3	4	5	Scientists can only assume that a chemical causes cancer if they discover that people who have worked with that chemical develop cancer more often than people who have never work that chemical.
14	Experiments are important in science because they can be used to generate reliable evidence.	1	2	3	4	5	Experiments are important in science because they prove ideas right or wrong.
15	All science is based on a single scientific method	1	2	3	4	5	The methods used by scientists vary based on the purpose of the research and the discipline.
16	The methods used to generate scientific knowledge are based on a set of techniques rather than a set of values.	1	2	3	4	5	The methods used to generate scientific knowledge are based on a set of values rather than a set of techniques.
17	In order to interpret the data they gather scientists rely on logic and their creativity and prior knowledge.	1	2	3	4	5	In order to interpret the data they have gather scientists rely on logic only and avoid using any creativity or prior knowledge.
18	Scientists are influenced by social factors, their personal beliefs, and past research.	1	2	3	4	5	Scientists are objective, social factors and their personal beliefs do not influence their work.
19	Successful scientists are able to use the scientific method better than unsuccessful scientists.	1	2	3	4	5	Successful scientists are able to persuade other members of the scientific community better than unsuccessful scientists.
20	Two scientists (with the same expertise) reviewing the same data will reach the same conclusions.	1	2	3	4	5	Two scientists (with the same expertise) reviewing the same data will often reach different conclusions.
21	A scientist’s personal beliefs and training influences what they believe counts as evidence.	1	2	3	4	5	What counts as evidence is the same for all scientists.
22	The observations made by two different scientists about the same phenomenon will be the same.	1	2	3	4	5	The observations made by two different scientists about the same phenomenon can be different.
23	It is safe to assume that scientist’s conclusions are accurate because they are an expert in their field.	1	2	3	4	5	A scientist’s conclusion can be wrong even though scientists are experts in An experiment is used to test an idea. Their field.
24	The concept of density is an invention of scientists to represent a property that physical objects might possess.	1	2	3	4	5	The concept of density is an inherent property of physical objects; it is completely independent of how scientists think.
25	Science is best described as a process of exploration and experiment.	1	2	3	4	5	Science is best described as a process of explanation and argument.
26	An experiment is used to test an idea.	1	2	3	4	5	An experiment is used to make a new discovery.