Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Students’ Perceptions of the Nature of Science in the Context of Their Gender and Their Parents’ Occupation

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A thorough understanding of the concept of the nature of science (NOS) is essential to the development of scientific literacy among students, as it provides the students with the tools and capacity to interpret the scientific knowledge they will encounter. This study focuses on how social factors may influence 1010 Israeli 9th grade students’ understanding of NOS by exploring their perceptions of NOS and the relationship of those perceptions with the students’ gender and their parents’ occupation. The study used a Likert-scale questionnaire entitled “Students’ Ideas about Nature of Science” (SINOS), developed by Chen et al. (2013) to quantitatively examine students’ perceptions of NOS based on the following constructs: creativity and imagination, tentativeness, the durability of scientific knowledge, coherence and objectivity in science, and different gender stereotypes related to NOS. The results show that there is strong agreement among students regarding subjective aspects of NOS as well as whether they believe that both males and females are equally able to engage in scientific endeavors. In fact, the strongest correlation was found between constructs concerning science-for-boys and science-for-girls. Other findings showed that boys tend to agree more with constructs pertaining to coherence and objectivity in science, whereas girls tended to agree more with aspects of science-for-girls. Students whose parents were engaged in science were found to be more likely to agree with the subjective aspects of NOS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We are aware that conducting multiple t tests can cause alpha-error cumulating. To avoid that bias, we restricted the level of significance to at least p < 0.01. In addition, we conducted multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) tests to verify that the results do not significantly differ from the multiple t tests.

    To get the Bonferroni corrected/adjusted p value, we divided the original α-value by the number of analyses on the dependent variable. Therefore, we assigned a new alpha for the set of dependent variables (p < .01).

References

  • van Aalderen-Smeets, S. I., Walma van der Molen, J. H., & Asma, L. J. (2012). Primary teachers’ attitudes toward science: a new theoretical framework. Science Education, 96(1), 158–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Nature of science in science education: toward a coherent framework for synergistic research and development. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1041–1060). Dordechet, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2014). The evolving landscape related to assessment of nature of science. In Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 621–650). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adedokun, O. A., Hetzel, K., Parker, L. C., Loizzo, J., Burgess, W. D., & Robinson, J. P. (2012). Using virtual field trips to connect students with university scientists: core elements and evaluation of zipTrips. Journal of Science and Educational Technology, 21(5), 607–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akcay, B., & Akcay, H. (2015). Effectiveness of science-technology-society (STS) instruction on student understanding of the nature of science and attitudes toward science. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 3(1), 37–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., & Donnelly, L. A. (2008). Relationships among learner characteristics and preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(1), 45–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (2007). Atlas of science literacy (Vol. 2). New York: Oxford University Press. American Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, L., & DeWitt, J. (2015). Science aspirations and gender identity: lessons from the ASPIRES project. In E. Henriksen, J. Dillon, & J. Ryder (Eds.), Understanding student participation and choice in science and technology education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). Science aspirations, capital, and family habitus: how families shape children’s engagement and identification with science. American Educational Research Journal, 49(5), 881–908.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2013). ‘Not girly, not sexy, not glamorous’: primary school girls’ and parents’ constructions of science aspirations. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 21(1), 171–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, L., DeWitt, J., & Willis, B. (2014). Adolescent boys’ science aspirations: masculinity, capital, and power. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, L., Moote, J., Francis, B., DeWitt, J., & Yeomans, L. (2017). The Bexceptional physics girl: a sociological analysis of multimethod data from young women aged 10-16 to explore gendered patterns of post-16 participation. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 88–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamberger, Y. M. (2014). Encouraging girls into science and technology with feminine role model: does this work? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(4), 549–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron-Cohen, S., Knickmeyer, R. C., & Belmonte, M. K. (2005). Sex differences in the brain: implications for explaining autism. Science, 310(5749), 819–823.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bian, L., Leslie, S. J., & Cimpian, A. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science, 355(6323), 389–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickhouse, N. W., Lowery, P., & Schultz, K. (2000). What kind of a girl does science? The construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 441–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, C., Carter, M. L., Cooper, T., & Nason, R. (2017). Implementing “big ideas” to advance the teaching and learning of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 25–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., Chang, W. H., Lieu, S. C., Kao, H. L., Huang, M. T., & Lin, S. F. (2013). Development of an empirically based questionnaire to investigate young students’ ideas about nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(4), 408–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesters, J. (2010). Has the effect of parents’ education on child’s education changed over time? Canberra: Australian National University, Centre for Economic Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2008). Teaching and assessing the nature of science: an introduction. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 143–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T. N., & van Raan, A. F. (2011). The “Mendel syndrome” in science: durability of scientific literature and its effects on bibliometric analysis of individual scientists. Scientometrics, 89(1), 177–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dabney, K. P., Chakraverty, D., & Tai, R. H. (2013). The association of family influence and initial interest in science. Science Education, 97(3), 395–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: theory and applications (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22, 2109–2139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing nature of science for science education. In reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education (pp. 1–18). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission Ethics and Gender. She Figures 2012: Gender in research and innovation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2013. (p. 1–157). Available: https://ec.europa.eu/research/sciencesociety/document_library/pdf_06/she-figures-2012_en.pdf. Access July 23, 2019.

  • Fleer, M. (2013). Affective imagination in science education: determining the emotional nature of scientific and technological learning of young children. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 2085–2106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flegg, R. B., & Burke, C. (1995). The enigma of girls’ concepts of the nature of science. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 41(3), 74–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flemming, D., Feinkohl, I., Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2015). Individual uncertainty and the uncertainty of science: the impact of perceived conflict and general self-efficacy on the perception of tentativeness and credibility of scientific information. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J. A., Hofkens, T., Wang, M. T., Mortenson, E., & Scott, P. (2018). Supporting girls’ and boys’ engagement in math and science learning: a mixed methods study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(2), 271–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorur, R. (2014). Towards a sociology of measurement in education policy. European Educational Research Journal, 13(1), 58–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacieminoglu, E. (2016). Elementary school students’ attitude toward science and related variables. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(2), 35–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanuscin, D. L., Akerson, V. L., & Phillipson-Mower, T. (2006). Integrating nature of science instruction into a physical science content course for preservice elementary teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants. Science Education, 90(5), 912–935.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrick, C. N. (2004). Objectivity versus narrative coherence: science, environmental policy, and the US data quality act. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(5), 419–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2014). Nature of science in the science curriculum: origin, development, implications and shifting emphases. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 911–970). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, F. D., Subotnik, R. F., & Matthews, D. J. (Eds.). (2009). The development of giftedness and talent across the life span. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11867-000

  • Hsu, Y., Peng, L. P., Wang, J. H., & Liang, C. (2014). Revising the imaginative capability and creative capability scales: testing the relationship between imagination and creativity among agriculture students. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 6(1), 57–70.

  • Huang, C. M., Tsai, C. C., & Chang, C. Y. (2005). An investigation of Taiwanese early adolescents’ views about the nature of science. Adolescence, 40(159), 645–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 591–607.

  • Jacobs, J. E. (2005). Twenty-five years of research on gender and ethnic differences in math and science career choices: what have we learned? New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 110, 85–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. E., & Bleeker, M. M. (2004). Girls' and boys' developing interests in math and science: Do parents matter? New directions for child and adolescent development, (106), 5–21.

  • Jensen, F., & Henriksen, E. K. (2015). Short stories of educational choice: In the words of science and technology students. In E. K. Henriksen, J. Dillon, & J. Ryder (Eds.), Understanding student participation and choice in science and technology education (pp. 135–151). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7793-4_9.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jodl, K. M., Michael, A., Malanchuk, O., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. (2001). Parents’ roles in shaping early adolescents’ occupational aspirations. Child Development, 72, 1247–1266. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624 .00345.

  • Kahn, S., & Ginther, D. (2017). Women and STEM (No. w23525). National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Kampourakis, K. (2016). The “general aspects” conceptualization as a pragmatic and effective means to introducing students to nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 667–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R. (2013). Transfer of nature of science understandings into similar contexts: promises and possibilities of an explicit reflective approach. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2928–2953.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). The influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., Alshaya, F. S., BouJaoude, M., N. S, & Alrudiyan, K. I. (2017). Students’ understandings of nature of science and their arguments in the context of four socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 39(3), 299–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1280741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J. (2015). Project-based science: engaging students in three dimensional learning. The Science Teacher, 82(1), 25–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, J. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2005). Teaching and assessing nature of science and scientific inquiry with young children. A workshop presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, Dallas, TX.

  • Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. volume II, pp. 600–620). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, J., Bartels, S., Lederman, N., & Gnanakkan, D. (2014). Demystifying nature of science. Science and Children, 52(1), 40–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindholm, M. (2018). Promoting curiosity? Science & Education, 27(9–10), 987–1002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makarova, E., & Herzog, W. (2015). Trapped in the gender stereotype? The image of science among secondary school students and teachers. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 34(2), 106–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. (1998). The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (2017). Understanding how science works: the nature of science as the foundation for science teaching and learning. School Science Review, 98(365), 71–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. I., Eagly, A. H., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Women’s representation in science predicts national gender-science stereotypes: evidence from 66 nations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 631.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moakler Jr., M. W., & Kim, M. M. (2014). College major choice in STEM: revisiting confidence and demographic factors. The Career Development Quarterly, 62(2), 128–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgenroth, T., Ryan, M. K., & Peters, K. (2015). The motivational theory of role modeling: how role models influence role aspirants’ goals. Review of General Psychology, 19(4), 465–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M. (2010). Science curriculum and teacher education: The role of presuppositions, contradictions, controversies and speculations vs Kuhn’s ‘normal science’. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 891–899.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2012). What kinds of careers do boys and girls expect for themselves? OECD Publishing.

  • Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, E., & DeWitt, J. (2015). Attitudes, interest and factors influencing STEM enrolment behaviour: an overview of relevant literature. In E. K. Henriksen, J. Dillon, & J. Ryder (Eds.), Understanding student participation and choice in science and technology education (pp. 63–88). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7793-4_5.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, D., Neumann, D. L., & Andrews, G. (2019). Investigating gender differences in mathematics and science: results from the 2011 trends in mathematics and science survey. Research in Science Education, 49(1), 25–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozek, C. S., Hyde, J. S., Svoboda, R. C., Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2015). Gender differences in the effects of a utility-value intervention to help parents motivate adolescents in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 195–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: a gender study. Science Education, 96(3), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salter, I. Y., & Atkins, L. J. (2014). What students say versus what they do regarding scientific inquiry. Science Education, 98(1), 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schizas, D., Psillos, D., & Stamou, G. (2016). Nature of science or nature of the sciences? Science Education, 100, 706–733.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Authentic scientific inquiry as context for teaching nature of science: identifying critical elements for success. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 331–355). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2008). An instrument to assess views of scientific inquiry: the VOSI questionnaire. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD.

  • Sheldrake, R., Mujtaba, T., & Reiss, M. J. (2017). Students’ changing attitudes and aspirations towards physics during secondary school. Research in Science Education, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9676-5.

  • Simon, R. M., Wagner, A., & Killion, B. (2017). Gender and choosing a STEM major in college: femininity, masculinity, chilly climate, and occupational values. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(3), 299–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpkins, S. D., Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Charting the Eccles’ expectancy-value model from mothers’ beliefs in childhood to youths’ activities in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1019–1032. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinnes, A. T., & Løken, M. (2014). Gendered education in a gendered world: looking beyond cosmetic solutions to the gender gap in science. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(2), 343–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subotnik, R. F., Tai, R. H., Rickoff, R., & Almarode, J. T. (2010). Specialized public high schools of science, mathematics, and technology and the STEM pipeline: what do we know now and what will we know in 5 years? Roeper Review, 32(1), 7–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Summers, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2019). Examining the representations of NOS in educational resources. Science & Education, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-0018-4.

  • Tenenbaum, H. R., & Leaper, C. (2003). Parent-child conversations about science: the socialization of gender inequities? Developmental Psychology, 39(1), 34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenenbaum, H. R., Snow, C. E., Roach, K. A., & Kurland, B. (2005). Talking and reading science: longitudinal data on sex differences in mother–child conversations in low-income families. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toma, R. B., Greca, I. M., & Orozco Gómez, M. L. (2019). Attitudes towards science and views of nature of science among elementary school students in terms of gender, cultural background and grade level variables. Research in Science & Technological Education,37(4), 492–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1561433

  • Tripney, J., Newman, M., Bangpan, M., Niza, C., MacKintosh, M., & Sinclair, J. (2010). Factors influencing young people (aged 14–19) in education about STEM subject choices: a systematic review of the UK literature. London: Wellcome Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, C. C., & Liu, S. Y. (2005). Developing a multi-dimensional instrument for assessing students’ epistemological views toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1621–1638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsybulsky, D. (2018). Comparing the impact of two science-as-inquiry methods on the NOS understanding of high-school biology students. Science & Education, 27(7–8), 661–683.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Aalderen-Smeets, S. I., & Walma van der Molen, J. H. (2015). Improving primary teachers’ attitudes toward science by attitude-focused professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), 710–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, E. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95, 1086–1100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Votsis, I., Tacca, M., & Schurz, G. (2015). Theory-ladenness special issue: introduction. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 46(1), 83–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2017). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 119–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeyer, A. (2018). Gender, complexity, and science for all: systemizing and its impact on motivation to learn science for different science subjects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(2), 147–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeyer, A., Çetin-Dindar, A., Md Zain, A. N., Juriŝeviĉ, M., Devetak, I., & Odermatt, F. (2013). Systemizing: a cross-cultural constant for motivation to learn science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(9), 1047–1067.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zirkel, S. (2002). Is there a place for me? Role models and academic identity among white students and students of color. Teacher College Record, 104(2), 357–337.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science and Technology Education, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

    Ameer Emran, Ofra Paz Tal & Orit Ben Zvi Assaraf

  2. The Science and Technology Education Program, The School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel

    Ornit Spektor-levy

Authors
  1. Ameer Emran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ornit Spektor-levy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ofra Paz Tal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Orit Ben Zvi Assaraf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ornit Spektor-levy.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Emran, A., Spektor-levy, O., Paz Tal, O. et al. Understanding Students’ Perceptions of the Nature of Science in the Context of Their Gender and Their Parents’ Occupation. Sci & Educ 29, 237–261 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00103-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00103-z

Search

Navigation