Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nature of Science and Classroom Practice: A Review of the Literature with Implications for Effective NOS Instruction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Nature of Science in Science Instruction

Part of the book series: Science: Philosophy, History and Education ((SPHE))

Abstract

This chapter summarizes the extensive literature related to NOS instruction, emphasizes research-based NOS instructional decision-making, and discusses challenges related to teaching aspects of nature of science. We discuss four instructional settings particulalry well-suited for supporting NOS instruction including the use of history of science, inquiry, socioscientific issues, and argumentation. We then examine literature regarding NOS learner readiness and NOS learning progressions to assist instructors in gauging when certain NOS topics will be most appropriate in instruction. The final section compares various settings for preparing preservice and in-service teachers to accurately understand the NOS, NOS pedagogy, and the importance of NOS teaching and learning. We end with considerations of challenges that remain with respect to NOS in the science curriculum.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The most frequently used NOS assessment tool is the VNOS instrument which has been revised many times but still faces criticisms (e.g., Allchin 2011).

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1997). Improving prospective and practicing science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. Unpublished scholarly library research paper presented to the faculty and doctoral students. Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 15–42.

    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 (Vol. 2, pp. 1041–1060). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science & Education, 22(9), 2087–2107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88(5), 785–810.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. (2009). The influence of metacognitive training on preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(16), 2161–2184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000a). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000b). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1095.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. P. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835–855.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abimbola, O. A. (1983). The relevance of the “new” philosophy of science for the science curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 83, 183–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Achieve. (2013). The next generation science standards. Retrived August 8, 2019. https://www.nextgenerationscience.org.

  • Adúriz-Bravo, A., & Izquierdo-Aymerich, M. (2009). A research-informed instructional unit to teach the nature of science to pre-service science teachers. Science & Education, 18(9), 1177–1192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (1979). Using qualitative data in formative evaluation. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 25(2), 117–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (1988). An analysis of four ways of assessing student beliefs about STS topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(8), 607–629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: “Views on Science-Technology-Society” (VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S., Fleming, R. W., & Ryan, A. G. (1987). High school graduates’ beliefs about science-technology-society. I. Methods and issues in monitoring student views. Science Education, 71(2), 145–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S., Ryan, A. G., & Fleming, R. W. (1989). Views on Science-Technology-Society, Form CDN.mc.5. Department of Curriculum Studies, College of Education, University of Saskatchewan. Available at https://www.usask.ca/education/documents/profiles/aikenhead/index.htm

  • Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: A yearlong case study of a fourth-grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 1025–1049.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). “How should I know what scientists do—I am just a kid”: Fourth grade students’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 17, 1–11.

    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 

  • Akerson, V. L., & Donnelly, L. A. (2010). Teaching nature of science to K-2 students: What understandings can they attain? International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 97–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J. A., & Roth-McDuffie, A. (2006). One course is not enough: preservice elementary teachers’ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 194–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., Hanson, D. L., & Cullen, T. A. (2007). The influence of guided inquiry and explicit instruction on K-6 teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(5), 751–772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-007-9065-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., Buzzelli, C. A., & Donnelly, L. A. (2010). On the nature of teaching nature of science: Preservice early childhood teachers’ instruction in preschool and elementary settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 213–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., Buck, G. A., Donnelly, L. A., Nargund-Joshi, V., & Weiland, I. S. (2011a). The importance of teaching and learning nature of science in the early childhood years. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 537–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., Weiland, I. S., Pongsanon, K., & Nargund, V. (2011b). Evidence-based strategies for teaching nature of science to young children. Journal of Kırşehir Education, 11(4), 61–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., Weiland, I. S., Nargund-Joshi, V., & Pongsanon, K. (2014). Becoming an elementary teacher of nature of science: Lessons learned for teaching elementary science. In Science teacher educators as K-12 teachers (pp. 71–87). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., Pongsanon, K., Rogers, M. A. P., Carter, I., & Galindo, E. (2017). Exploring the use of lesson study to develop elementary preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching nature of science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(2), 293–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akindehin, F. (1988). Effect of an instructional package on preservice science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and acquisition of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 72(1), 73–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2003). Scientific myth-conceptions. Science Education, 87(3), 329–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2004). Pseudohistory and pseudoscience. Science & Education, 13(3), 179–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2013). Problem-and case-based learning in science: An introduction to distinctions, values, and outcomes. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 364–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D., Andersen, H. M., & Nielsen, K. (2014). Complementary approaches to teaching nature of science: Integrating student inquiry, historical cases, and contemporary cases in classroom practice. Science Education, 98(3), 461–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001). Atlas of science literacy: Mapping K-12 learning and goals. Washington: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2006). Atlas of science literacy: Mapping K-12 learning and goals. Volume II. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, H. O., Harty, H., & Samuel, K. V. (1986). Nature of science, 1969 and 1984: Perspectives of preservice secondary science teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 86, 43–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appleton, K. (1997). Analysis and description of students’ learning during science classes using a constructivist-based model. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(3), 303–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backhus, D. A., & Thompson, K. W. (2006). Addressing the nature of science in preservice science teacher preparation programs: Science educator perceptions. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(1), 65–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Chapel Hill: Horizon Research. Available at http://www.horizon-research.com/2012nssme/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2012-NSSME-Full-Report1.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barufaldi, J. P., Bethel, L. J., & Lamb, W. G. (1977). The effect of a science methods course on the philosophical view of science among elementary education majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14(4), 289–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beane, J. A., & Apple, M. W. (1995). The case for democratic schools. In M. W. Apple & J. A. Beane (Eds.), Democratic schools (pp. 1–25). Alexandria: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behnke, F. L. (1961). Reactions of scientists and science teachers to statements bearing on certain aspects of science and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 61(3), 193–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L. (2006). Perusing Pandora’s box: exploring the what, when, and how of nature of science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 427–446). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J., & Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 414–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., Mulvey, B. K., & Maeng, J. L. (2016). Outcomes of nature of science instruction along a context continuum: Preservice secondary science teachers’ conceptions and instructional intentions. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 493–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235–251.

    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 

  • Clark, R. L., Clough, M. P., & Berg, C. A. (2000). Modifying cookbook labs: A different way of teaching a standard laboratory engages students and promotes understanding. The Science Teacher, 67(7), 40–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P. (2002). Using the laboratory to enhance student learning. In R. W. Bybee (Ed.), Learning science and the science of learning (pp. 85–94). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 15(5), 463–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P. (2007). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students: Questions rather than tenets. The Pantaneto Forum, 25. http://pantaneto.co.uk/issue-25/

  • Clough, M. P. (2011a). Teaching and assessing the nature of science: How to effectively incorporate the nature of science in your classroom. The Science Teacher, 78(6), 56–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P. (2011b). The story behind the science: Bringing science and scientists to life in post-secondary science education. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 701–717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P. (2015). Role of visual data in effectively teaching the nature of science. In K. D. Finson & J. Pedersen (Eds.), Application of visual data in K–16 science classrooms. Charlotte: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P. (2017). History and nature of science in science education. In K. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science education: An international course companion (pp. 39–51). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2012). Impact of a nature of science and science education course on teachers’ nature of science classroom practices (Chapter 12). In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P., Berg, C. A., & Olson, J. K. (2009). Promoting effective science teacher education and science teaching: A framework for teacher decision-making. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(4), 821–847.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corcoran, T., Mosher, F.A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform (Consortium for Policy Research in Education Report #RR-63). Consortium for Policy Research in Education: Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cossman, G. W. (1969). The effects of a course in science and culture for secondary school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6(3), 274–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotham, J. C., & Smith, E. L. (1981). Development and validation of the conceptions of scientific theories test. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(5), 387–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demirdöğen, B., Hanuscin, D. L., Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E., & Köseoğlu, F. (2016). Development and nature of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for nature of science. Research in Science Education, 46(4), 575–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deng, F., Chen, D. T., Tsai, C. C., & Chai, C. S. (2011). Students’ views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Education, 95(6), 961–999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deniz, H., & Adibelli, E. (2015). Exploring how second grade elementary teachers translate their nature of science views into classroom practice after a graduate level nature of science course. Research in Science Education, 45(6), 867–888.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibbs, D. R. (1982). An investigation into the nature and consequences of teachers implicit philosophies of science, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Birmingham: University of Aston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, L. A., & Argyle, S. (2011). Teachers’ willingness to adopt nature of science activities following a physical science professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(6), 475–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Bristol: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Wright, E. (1989). A case-study of high-school teachers decision-making models for planning and teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(6), 467–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A. (2011). Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and analysis. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 123–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289–2315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eflin, J. T., Glennan, S., & Reisch, G. (1999). The nature of science: A perspective from the philosophy of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 107–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1938). The evolution of physics: From early concepts to relativity and quanta. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5), 554–567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fouad, K. E., Masters, H., & Akerson, V. L. (2015). Using history of science to teach nature of science to elementary students. Science & Education, 24(9–10), 1103–1140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, J.J. (1991). Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science Education, 75(1), 121–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gayford, C. (2002). Controversial environmental issues: A case study for the professional development of science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1191–1200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). The use and impact of explicit instruction about the nature of science and science inquiry in an elementary science methods course. Science & Education, 11(1), 55–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill, W. (1977). The editor’s page. The Australian Science Teacher’s Journal, 23, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1977). Ever since Darwin. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanuscin, D. L. (2013). Critical incidents in the development of pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science: A prospective elementary teacher’s journey. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(6), 933–956.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanuscin, D. L., Lee, M. H., & Akerson, V. L. (2011). Elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science. Science Education, 95(1), 145–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harms, H., & Yager, R. E. (1981). What research says to the science teacher (Vol. 3). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, B. C. (2015). The influence of global warming science views and sociocultural factors on willingness to mitigate global warming. Science Education, 1(1), 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, B. C. (2018). Students’ environmental NOS views, compassion, intent, and action: Impact of place-based socioscientific issues instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(4), 600–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, B. C., & Clough, M. P. (2016). Teachers’ longitudinal NOS understanding after having completed a science teacher education program. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(1), 207–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9594-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2013a). Association between experienced teachers’ NOS implementation and reform-based science teaching practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(7), 1077–1102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2013b). Teachers’ nature of science implementation practices 2–5 years after having completed an intensive science education program. Science Education, 97(2), 271–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, B. C., Olson, J. K. & Clough, M. P. (2017). The role of informal support networks in teaching the nature of science. Research in Science Education. Online first. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9610-2

  • Hodson, D. (1988). Toward a philosophically more valid science curriculum. Science Education, 72, 19–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy: A teachers’ guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horizon Research, Inc. (2006). 2005-2006 local systemic change classroom observation protocol. Available at http://www.horizon-research.com/LSC/manual/

  • Höttecke, D., & Silva, C. C. (2011). Why implementing history and philosophy in school science education is a challenge: An analysis of obstacles. Science & Education, 20(3–4), 293–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, E. M., & Rudge, D. W. (2005). Recapitulating the history of sickle-cell anemia research. Science & Education, 14(3–5), 423–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irez, S. (2009). Nature of science as depicted in Turkish biology textbooks. Science Education, 93(3), 422–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84(1), 5–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R. (2012). Nature of science and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 67–100.

    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. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific issues: An effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 974–1016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R. (2015). A look into students’ retention of acquired nature of science understandings. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1639–1667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). 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 

  • Kim, S. Y., & Irving, K. E. (2010). History of science as an instructional context: Student learning in genetics and nature of science. Science & Education, 19(2), 187–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, M. E. (1967). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5(2), 110–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kindi, V. (2005). Should science teaching involve the history of science? An assessment of Kuhn’s view. Science & Education, 14(7–8), 721–731.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, B. (1991). Beginning teachers’ knowledge of and attitude toward history and philosophy of science. Science Education, 75, 135–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D. (2001). ‘To trust or not to trust, …’ – pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877–901.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D. (2008). Science education for democratic citizenship through the use of the history of science. Science & Education, 17(8–9), 977–997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruse, J. W., Easter, J. M., Edgerly, H. S., Seebach, C., & Patel, N. (2017). The impact of a course on nature of science pedagogical views and rationales. Science & Education, 26(6), 613–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakin, S., & Wellington, J. (1994). Who will teach the nature of science? Teachers’ views of science and their implications for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 175–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 916–929.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2006). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    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: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74(2), 225–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). The development, use, and interpretation of nature of science assessments. In International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 971–997). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H., & Witz, K. G. (2009). Science teachers’ inspiration for teaching socio-scientific issues: Disconnection with reform efforts. International Journal of Science Education, 31(7), 931–960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, J. S. C., Wong, A. S. L., & Yung, B. H. W. (2015). Understandings of nature of science and multiple perspective evaluation of science news by non-science majors. Science & Education, 24(7–8), 887–912.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang, L. L., Chen, S., Chen, X., Kaya, O. N., Adams, A. D., Macklin, M., & Ebenezer, J. (2008). Assessing preservice elementary teachers’ views on the nature of scientific knowledge: A dual-response instrument. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 1–20. http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, H. S., & Chen, C. C. (2002). Promoting preservice chemistry teachers’ understanding about the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 773–792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, S. F., Lieu, S. C., Chen, S., Huang, M. T., & Chang, W. H. (2012). Affording explicit-reflective science teaching by using an educative teachers’ guide. International Journal of Science Education, 34(7), 999–1026.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loving, C. (1991). The scientific theory profile: A philosophy of science model for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 823–838.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manuel, D. E. (1981). Reflections on the role of history and philosophy of science in school science education. School Science Review, 62, 769–771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M. R. (1972). Concepts of science education: A philosophical analysis. Greenview: Scott, Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matkins, J. J., & Bell, R. L. (2007). Awakening the scientist inside: Global climate change and the nature of science in an elementary science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 137–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (1989). A role for history and philosophy in science teaching. Interchange, 20, 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). Chapter 1. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2015). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (2010). The history of science and the future of science education: A typology of approaches to the history of science in science instruction. In P. V. Kokkotas, K. S. Malamitsa, & A. A. Rizaki (Eds.), Adapting historical knowledge production to the classroom (pp. 37–54). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., & Kampourakis, K. (2015). Using the history of biology, chemistry, geology and physics to teach aspects of the nature of science. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT (Information and Communication Technology) Education, 9(1), 47–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., & Nouri, N. (2016). The nature of science and the next generation science standards: Analysis and critique. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(5), 555–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. Chapter 2. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Boston: Kluwer/Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1137–1164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medawar, P. B. (1963). Is the scientific paper a fraud? Listener, 70, 377–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medawar, P. B. (1990). The threat and the glory: Reflections on science and scientists. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, J. A., Raab, F., & Ingram, D. (2009). Factors influencing elementary and secondary teachers’ views on the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 384–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, D. M., Abrams, E. D., & Robb, J. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 771–790.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munby, H. (1982). The place of teachers’ beliefs in research on teacher thinking and decision making, and an alternative methodology. Instructional Science, 11, 201–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Teachers Association. (2012). NSTA preservice science standards.https://www.nsta.org/preservice/docs/2012NSTAPreserviceScienceStandards.pdf

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunan, E. (1977). History and philosophy of science and science teaching: A revisit. The Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 23, 65–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, J. K. (2018). The inclusion of the nature of science in nine recent international science education standards documents. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-9993-8.

  • Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagliarini, C. D. R., & Silva, C. C. (2007, March). History and nature of science in Brazilian physics textbooks: Some findings and perspectives. In Ninth International History, Philosophy, Sociology & Science Teaching Conference (IHPST), Calgary, Canada (pp. 28–31). Calgary: IHPST.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paraskevopoulou, E., & Koliopoulos, D. (2011). Teaching the nature of science through the Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute. Science & Education, 20(10), 943–960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science: Comparison of the beliefs of the scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77(3), 261–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, R. M., & Perez, K. E. (2018). Many paths toward discovery: A module for teaching how science works. Journal of College Science Teaching, 47(3), 78–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quigley, C., Pongsanon, K., & Akerson, V. (2010). If we teach them, they can learn: Young students views of nature of science aspects to early elementary students during an informal science education program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(7), 887–907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, G. A., & Howe, R. W. (1969). An analysis of research on instructional procedures in secondary school science: Part I—outcomes of instruction. The Science Teacher, 36(3), 62–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. T. (1969). Philosophy of science: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6, 99–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubba, P. A. (1976). Nature of scientific knowledge scale. Bloomington: School of Education, Indiana University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudge, D. W., Cassidy, D. P., Fulford, J. M., & Howe, E. M. (2014). Changes observed in views of nature of science during a historically based unit. Science & Education, 23(9), 1879–1909.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the “nature of science” as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., Chambers, W. F., & Zeidler, D. (2002). Investigating the crossroads of socioscientific issues, the nature of science, and critical thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., Chambers, W. F., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2003). The inquiry paradox: Why doing science doesn’t necessarily change ideas about science. In C. P. Constantinou & Z. C. Zacharia (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Computer-Based Learning in Science Conference 2003 (pp. 825–834). Nicosia: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schalk, K. A. (2012). A socioscientific curriculum facilitating the development of distal and proximal NOS conceptualizations. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharmann, L. C., Smith, M. U., James, M. C., & Jensen, M. (2005). Explicit reflective nature of science instruction: Evolution, intelligent design, and umbrellaology. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(1), 27–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2008). What scientists say: Scientists’ views of nature of science and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 727–771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sismondo, S. (2004). An introduction to science and technology studies. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. L., & Wiser, M. (2015). On the importance of epistemology–Disciplinary core concept interactions in learning progressions. Science Education, 99(3), 417–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E., & Easley, J. A. (1978). Case studies in science education. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED166059.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology and educational theory and practice (pp. 147–176). Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Summers, M. (1982). Philosophy of science in the science teacher education curriculum. European Journal of Science Education, 4, 19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, S. J. (2010). Factors affecting early elementary (K-4) teachers’ introduction to the nature of science: A national survey. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tao, P. K. (2003). Eliciting and developing junior secondary students’ understanding of the nature of science through a peer collaboration instruction in science stories. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 147–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahbeh, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2014). Revisiting the translation of nature of science understandings into instructional practice: Teachers’ nature of science pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 36(3), 425–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The role of students’ understanding of the nature of science in a debate activity: Is there one? Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Vancouver, BC, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waters-Adams, S. (2006). The relationship between understanding of the nature of science and practice: The influence of teachers’ beliefs about education, teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28(8), 919–944.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. (1968). The double helix. New York: Atheneum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J., & Crick, F. (1953). A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature, 171, 737–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, I. R. (1993). Science teachers rely on the textbook. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), What research says to the science teacher, vol. 7: The science, technology, society movement. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K–12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill: Horizon Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch, W. W. (1966). Welch science process inventory, form D. Minneapolis: Minnesota Research and Evaluation Center, University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessel, M. R. (1980). Science and conscience. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C. T., & Rudge, D. W. (2016). Emphasizing the history of genetics in an explicit and reflective approach to teaching the nature of science. Science & Education, 25(3–4), 407–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S. L., Hodson, D., Kwan, J., & Yung, B. H. W. (2008). Turning crisis into opportunity: Enhancing student-teachers’ understanding of nature of science and scientific inquiry through a case study of the scientific research in severe acute respiratory syndrome. International Journal of Science Education, 30(11), 1417–1439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807–838.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmins, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., Ruzek, M., Linder, A., & Lin, S. S. (2013). Cross-cultural epistemological orientations to socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 251–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA

    William F. McComas

  2. Department of Teaching, Learning, and Culture, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Michael P. Clough

  3. University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, TX, USA

    Noushin Nouri

Authors
  1. William F. McComas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael P. Clough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Noushin Nouri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William F. McComas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education & Health Professions, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA

    William F. McComas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

McComas, W.F., Clough, M.P., Nouri, N. (2020). Nature of Science and Classroom Practice: A Review of the Literature with Implications for Effective NOS Instruction. In: McComas, W.F. (eds) Nature of Science in Science Instruction. Science: Philosophy, History and Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57239-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57239-6_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-57238-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-57239-6

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation