Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How Do University Students Perceive the Nature of Science?

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

Abstract

The paper presents an empirical study on university students’ perceptions of nature of science (NOS). NOS is framed in terms of the cognitive, epistemic, and social-institutional systems of science based on the Family Resemblance Approach (FRA) (Erduran and Dagher 2014; Irzik and Nola 2014; Irzik and Nola, SCED 20:591–607, 2011). FRA includes the following categories: aims and values of science, scientific practices, scientific methods, scientific knowledge, and social-institutional aspects of science. A study was conducted with 15 university students from science and non-science majors at a public university in Turkey. Individual interviews were conducted, and qualitative data analysis was carried out. The educational adaptation of FRA was previously referred to as RFN (or the Reconceptualised FRA to NOS) (Kaya and Erduran, SCED, 25(9–10):1115–1133, 2016). In this study, categories of RFN were identified in students’ responses. The results show that non-science majors (e.g., philosophy, sociology) have an enhanced perception of NOS in comparison to science majors (e.g., physics, computer engineering). It is also observed that university students were not explicitly aware of different aspects of NOS and their perceptions do not represent a holistic account. The study suggests that RFN can be used as a framework to explore university students’ perceptions of NOS and their perceptions of NOS are linked to their domain-specific educational background.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abell, S. K., & Smith, D. C. (1994). What is science? Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 16(4), 475–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akgun, S., & Kaya, E. (2019, July). How do university students perceive social-institutional aspects of nature of science? Paper presented at the International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching (IHPST) Conference. Thessaloniki, Greece.

  • Alayoglu, M. (2018). Fifth-grade students’ attitudes towards science and their understanding of its social-institutional aspects, Unpublished Master’s thesis. Istanbul, Turkey: Bogazici University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (1999). Values in science. Science & Education, 8(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2013). Teaching the nature of science: perspectives and resources. St. Paul, MN: SHiPs.

  • BouJaoude, S. (1996). Epistemology and sociology of science according to Lebanese educators and students. Missouri: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • BouJaoude, S., Dagher, Z. R., & Refai, S. (2017). The portrayal of nature of science in Lebanese 9th grade science books. In C. V. McDonald & F. Abd-El-Khalick (Eds.), Representations of nature of science in school science textbooks: a global perspective (pp. 79–97). New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Teaching thematic analysis: overcoming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. The Psychologist, 26(2), 120–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagher, Z. (2015). Using images of science to enrich the integrated science curriculum. Invited informal seminar with preceptors at the Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering Laboratory: University of Delaware.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagher, Z., & BouJaoude, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions of the nature of evolutionary theory. Science Education, 89, 378–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagher, Z., & Erduran, S. (2017). Abandoning patchwork approaches to nature of science in science education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 17(1), 46–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (1994). Research on the history and philosophy of science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 443–465). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (2011). Demarcation in science education: toward an enhanced view of scientific method. In R. Taylor & M. Ferrari (Eds.), Epistemology and science education: understanding the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy (pp. 3–19). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Erduran, S., Dagher, Z., Mugaloglu, E., Kaya, E., Saribas, D., & Ceyhan, G. (2015, April). Defining and understanding scientific practices in pre-service science teacher education. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of NARST, Chicago, IL.

  • Erduran, S., Kaya, E., & Dagher, Z. (2018). From lists in pieces to coherent wholes: revisiting the nature of science in science education. In J. Yeo, T. W. Teo, & K. S. Tang (Eds.), Research and practice in the Asia–Pacific region. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faculty of Arts and Sciences. (2020). In Bogazici University. Retrieved from http://www.fef.boun.edu.tr/en/. Accessed 23 February 2020.

  • Faculty of Engineering. (2020). In Bogazici University. Retrieved from http://www.boun.edu.tr/en_US/Content/Academic/Undergraduate_Catalogue/Faculty_of_Engineering.

  • Fink, A. (1995). How to sample in surveys. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, A. K., & Barry, M. (1993). High school students’ views about the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 93(1), 35–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Irzık, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, O. (2014). Scientists find link between gut bacteria and how the brain works. Retrieved from http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/scientists-find-link-between-gut-bacteria-and-how-the-brain-works/.

  • Karabaş, N. (2017). The effect of scientific practice-based instruction on seventh graders’ perceptions of scientific practices (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Istanbul, Turkey: Bogazici University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, E., Erduran, S., Aksoz, B., & Akgun, S. (2019). Reconceptualised family resemblance approach to nature of science in pre-service science teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 21–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, E., & Erduran, S. (2016). From FRA to RFN, or how the Family Resemblance Approach can be transformed for science curriculum analysis on nature of science. Science & Education, 25(9–10), 1115–1133.

  • Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes: philosophical papers (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. E. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, J. S. C., Wong, A. S. L., & Yung, B. H. W. (2016). Evaluation of science in the media by non-science majors. International Journal of Science Education, 7(3), 219–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Differences in the scientific epistemological views of undergraduate students. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1055–1073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (1995). Gender, politics and the theoretical virtues. Synthese, 104(3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: from nature of science to features of science. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. (1998). The principal elements of nature of science: dispelling the myths. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 53–70). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. V., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2017). Representations of nature of science in school science textbooks. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, M. C. D., Montplaisir, L. M., Offerdahl, E. G., Cheng, F.-C., & Ketterling, G. L. (2010). Comparison of views of the nature of science between natural science and on science majors. CBE Life Sciences Education, 9(1), 45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moseman, A. (2015). Dear congress: we need money. Love, NASA. Retrieved from http://bigthink.com/articles/dear-congress-we-need-money-love-nasa/.

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, L., Krockover, G., Lasher-Trapp, S., & Eichinger, D. (2008). Ideas about the nature of science held by undergraduate atmospheric science students. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(11), 1681–1688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, J., & Leach, J. (1999). University science students’ experiences of investigative project work and their images of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(9), 945–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saribas, D., & Ceyhan, G. D. (2015). Learning to teach scientific practices: pedagogical decisions and reflections during a course for pre-service science teachers. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schommer, M. (1993). Comparisons of beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning among postsecondary students. Research in Higher Education, 34(3), 355–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Council of Higher Education (YÖK). (2014). Higher education system in Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı (YOK). (1998). Eğitim fakültesi öğretmen yerleştirme lisans programları. Ankara, Turkey: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D., Sadler, T., Simmons, M., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: a research-basedframework on socio-scieentific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the university students for their participation and for providing data used in the paper.

Funding

The authors wish to thank the Bogazici University Research Fund (Project Number 12860) for their financial contribution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Selin Akgun

  2. Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ebru Kaya

Authors
  1. Selin Akgun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ebru Kaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Selin Akgun.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Electronic Supplementary Material

ESM 1

(PDF 142 kb)

ESM 2

(PDF 252 kb)

ESM 3

(PDF 141 kb)

Appendix A INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Appendix A INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

  1. 1.

    What comes to your mind when I say aims and values of science? Can you give any examples?

  2. 2.

    What comes to your mind when I say scientific practices? Can you give any examples?

  3. 3.

    What comes to your mind when I say scientific methods? Can you give any examples?

  • What do you think about the methods of science? Are there different kinds of scientific methods or not? Please explain.

  1. 4.

    What comes to your mind when I say scientific knowledge? Can you give any examples?

  • What do you think about the characteristics of the scientific knowledge?

  • What are the forms of scientific knowledge? Please explain.

  • Do you think that scientific knowledge changes? Why?

  1. 5.

    What comes to your mind when I say social and institutional aspects of science? Can you give any examples?

  • What do you think about the professional activities that are practiced in scientific process?

  • What do you think about the role of social and cultural values on science?

  • What do you think about the social certification and dissemination process of science? In other words, how scientists share their work with public?

  • What do you think about the relationship between science and financial systems?

  • What do you think about the relationship between science and political power structures?

  1. 6.

    Please read the Text 1. When you read the text:

  • Which key terms and concepts raised in your mind in terms of the aims and values of science? Please explain.

  • Which key terms and concepts raised in your mind in terms of the scientific practices of science? Please explain.

  • Which key terms and concepts raised in your mind in terms of the methods and methodological rules of science? Please explain.

  • Which key terms and concepts raised in your mind in terms of scientific knowledge? Please explain.

  • Which key terms and concepts raised in your mind in terms of the social-institutional systems of science? Please explain.

  1. 7.

    Please read Text 2. When you read the text, which key terms and concepts raised in your mind in terms of the social-institutional categories of science? Please explain.

  2. 8.

    Overall, when you consider the discussion we made and texts you read, what do you think about the relationship between these five categories?

  3. 9.

    To what extent do you think these five categories explain science as whole?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Akgun, S., Kaya, E. How Do University Students Perceive the Nature of Science?. Sci & Educ 29, 299–330 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00105-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00105-x

Search

Navigation