Skip to main content
Log in

Using Children’s Literature in the Middle School Science Class to Teach Nature of Science

Preservice Teachers’ Development of Sources

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

Abstract

In this study, we report the results of the content analysis of preservice middle school science teachers’ own written science storybooks and middle school female students’ reflections of five of the books. The participants of this study were 50 preservice middle school science teachers taking a history and nature of science course and 13 sixth-grade female students in a school in Turkey. We report representations of nature of science (NOS) aspects included in the preservice teachers’ own written storybooks. Observation and inference was the most commonly included aspect among the NOS aspects, followed by the tentative NOS. We used a qualitative analysis of transcribed classroom discussions around five storybooks used by five preservice teachers in their field experiences. We found that the teachers facilitated explicit reflections about NOS aspects and science content covered in the books. Our findings build on research showing that appropriately designed children’s science books can be used as classroom tools for supporting NOS instruction. We found that writing their storybooks and refining their NOS ideas through discussions provides a powerful tool for developing preservice teachers’ knowledge about NOS. Preservice teachers facilitated discussions promoting explicit student reflections about NOS aspects and science content using these books.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary science courses: Abandoning scientism, but... Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 215–233.

    Article  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). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., Myers, J. Y., Summers, R., Brunner, J., Waight, N., Wahbeh, N., Zeineddin, A. A., & Belarmino, J. (2017). A longitudinal analysis of the extent and manner of representations of nature of science in US high school biology and physics textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(1), 82–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., Avsar Erumit, B., & Elcan Kaynak, N. (2019). Teaching nature of science through children’s literature: An early childhood preservice teacher study. International Journal of Science Education, 41(18), 2765–2787.

  • Akerson, V.L., Elcan Kaynak, N., & Avsar Erumit, B. (2019). Preparing preservice early childhood teachers to teach nature of science: Writing children’s books. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 4(1). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/preparing-preservice-early-childhood-teachers-to-teach-nature-of-science-writing-childrens-books/

  • Akerson, V. L., Elcan Kaynak, N., & Avsar Erumit, B. (2019). Development of Third Graders' Identities as" Persons Who Understand Nature of Science" through a Gravity Unit. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 5(2), 450–456.

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

  • Akerson, V., Nargund-Joshi, V., Weiland, I., Pongsanon, K., & Avsar, B. (2014). What third-grade students of differing ability levels learn about nature of science after a year of instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 36(2), 244–276.

  • Akgun, S., & Kaya, E. (2020). How do university students perceive the nature of science? Science & Education, 29(2), 299–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00105-x

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

  • Bell, R. L. (2009). Teaching the nature of science: Three critical questions. Best Practices in Science Education, 22, 1–6.

    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(4), 414–436.

    Article  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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1151960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, J. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2017). Representations of nature of science in U.S. elementary science trade books. In C. V. McDonald & F. Abd-El-Khalick (Eds.), Representations of nature of science in school science textbooks a global perspective (pp. 135–151). New York: Routledge.

  • Brunner, J. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2020). Improving nature of science instruction in elementary classes with modified science trade books and educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(2), 154–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgin, S. R., & Sadler, T. D. (2016). Learning nature of science concepts through a research apprenticeship program: A comparative study of three approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(1), 31–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.

  • Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness (pp. 88–98). BSCS, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casteel, C. P., & Isom, B. A. (1994). Reciprocal processes in science and literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 47(7), 538–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 67(2), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730670213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, K. K. C. (2020). Exploring the inclusion of nature of science in biology curriculum and high-stakes assessments in Hong Kong. Science & Education, 29(3), 491–512.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. New York: Teachers College Press.

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.667582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmons, N., Lees, K., & Kelemen, D. (2018). Young children’s near and far transfer of the basic theory of natural selection: An analogical storybook intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(3), 321–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9057-4_1

  • Erduran, S., Dagher, Z. R., & McDonald, C. V. (2019). Contributions of the family resemblance approach to nature of science in science education. Science & Education, 28(3), 311–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erumit, B. A., Fouad, K. E., & Akerson, V. L. (2019). How Do Learner-Directed Scientific Investigations Influence Students’ Questioning and Their Nature of Science Conceptions?. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 7(1), 20–31.

  • Evers, Jeanine C. (2011). From the Past into the Future. How Technological Developments Change Our Ways of Data Collection, Transcription and Analysis [94 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-12.1.1636

  • Eymur, G. (2019). The influence of the explicit nature of science instruction embedded in the argument-driven inquiry method in chemistry laboratories on high school students’ conceptions about the nature of science. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(1), 17–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. J. (2006). Representations of science within children’s trade books. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 214–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Carmona, A., & Acevedo-Díaz, J. A. (2017). Understanding the nature of science through a critical and reflective analysis of the controversy between Pasteur and Liebig on fermentation. Science & Education, 26(1), 65–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK: Results of the thinking from the PCK Summit. In A. Berry , J. Loughran, & P. Friedrichsen (Eds.), Re-examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education (pp. 38–52). essay, New York: Routledge.

  • Graneheim, U. H., Lindgren, B. M., & Lundman, B. (2017). Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: A discussion paper. Nurse Education Today, 56, 29–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, L., Leden, L., & Thulin, S. (2020). Book talks as an approach to nature of science teaching in early childhood education. International Journal of Science Education, 42(12), 2095–2111. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1812011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hapgood, S., & Palincsar, A. S. (2006). Where literacy and science intersect. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 56–60.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janke, D., & Norton, D. (1983). Science trades in the classroom: Good tools for teachers. Science and Children, 20(6), 46–48.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, L. B. (2018). An analysis of award-winning science trade books for children: Who are the scientists, and what is science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(8), 1188–1210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R. (2008). The development of seventh graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: THe Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 470–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R. (2012a). Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 489–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: THe Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2007). Relationship between instructional context and views of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 939–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J. S., & Sutherland, L. M. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science, 328(5977), 456–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

  • Kyngäs, H., Kääriäinen, M., & Elo, S. (2020). The trustworthiness of content analysis. In H. Kyngäs, K. Mikkonen, & M. Kääriäinen (Eds.), The application of content analysis in nursing science research (pp. 41–48). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leden, L., Hansson, L., Redfors, A., & Ideland, M. (2015). Teachers’ ways of talking about nature of science and its teaching. Science & Education, 24(9–10), 1141–1172.

    Article  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.

    Article  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. 831–880). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2019). Contextualizing the relationship between nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry. Science & Education, 28, 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00030-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Kluwer Academic.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N., & Lederman, J. (2004). Revising instruction to teach nature of science: Modifying activities to enhance students’ understanding of science, The Science Teacher, 71(9), 36–39.

  • Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education, Volume II (pp. 614–634). Routledge, New York.

  • Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics Science and Technology, 1(3), 138–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B., and Tisdell, E. (2015). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation (4th Ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

  • MoNE – Turkish Ministry of National Education [Milli Eğitim Bakanligi] (2018). Science Education Curriculum for Grades 4–8. Retrieved August 18, 2021, from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/201812312311937-FEN%20B%C4%B0L%C4%B0MLER%C4%B0%20%C3%96%C4%9ERET%C4%B0M%20PROGRAMI2018.pdf

  • Monhardt, R., & Monhardt, L. (2000). Children’s literature and environmental issues: Heart over mind? Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 40(3), 175–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser, S. (1994). Using storybooks to teach science themes. Reading Horizons, 35(2), 138–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulvey, B. K., & Bell, R. L. (2017). Making learning last: Teachers’ long-term retention of improved nature of science conceptions and instructional rationales. International Journal of Science Education, 39(1), 62–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutonyi, H. (2016). Stories, proverbs, and anecdotes as scaffolds for learning science concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 943–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Teachers Association. (2000). NSTA position statement: The nature of science. Retrieved August 18, 2021, from, www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 203–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozgelen, S., Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2013). Exploring the development of preservice science teachers’ views on the nature of science in inquiry-based laboratory instruction. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1551–1570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pringle, R. M., & Lamme, L. L. (2005). Using picture storybooks to support young children’s science learning. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 46(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, C., & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royce, C. A., & Wiley, D. A. (1996). Children’s literature and the teaching of science: Possibilities and cautions. The Clearing House, 70(1), 18–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sackes, M., Trundle, K. C., & Flevares, L. M. (2009). Using children’s literature to teach standard-based science concepts in early years. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(5), 415–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi, X. (2021). Using explicit teaching of philosophy to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 30(2), 409–440.

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yacoubian, H. A. (2021). Students’ views of nature of science. Sci & Educ, 30, 381–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00179-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Banu Avsar Erumit.

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.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Story 1

1.1.1 Hapless Pluto

Once upon a time, there were many planets in space, and some of these planets were legendary for their strong family ties. One of them was the solar system that consisted of the Sun, which was the mother of nine planets. Each of the children of mother Sun had distinctive features. For example, Jupiter was the largest among the siblings, while Saturn has been known with its beautiful ringlets, and Uranus has been known with its icy materials that contained methane. Neptune was the most antisocial and the coldest child of the Sun and therefore it was the most distant to its mother. Mars was blushing with anger and therefore its color was red. Uranus was the mischievous child and was always rotating on its sides. Mercury, who loved his mother the most, was always in close proximity to his mother, so his temperature was high. The most intelligent and resourceful of them was planet Earth. The smallest and the quietest was Pluto. One day everybody was bored and decided to play a game. However, the game ended with an unfortunate accident… Pluto was injured from the accident. The mother Sun took his son, Pluto to the doctor. The doctor made some testing including a DNA testing. The results of the DNA test showed that Pluto was not the child of the Sun. The Sun and other planets were shocked with the results and read the doctor’s report. The report presented some empirical evidence and said Pluto was a dwarf planet… Pluto lost his planetary status and became a dwarf planet. That shows us our explanation of scientific knowledge can change in light of new evidence and interpretation of findings from further observations.

1.2 Story 2

1.2.1 Time Machine of Nasreddin Hodja

Once upon a time, Nasreddin Hodja was going to the wheat mill with his Donkey, named Karakacan. He met with two villagers on the way. One of the men was digging a hole while the other was filling the opened hole with a shovel. Nasreddin Hodja observed them for a while but he could not understand what they were doing. He burst into laughter and said, what are you guys doing here? Then Sir Hasan said, “Hodja! God sent us you. You came here to find an answer to our question”. Sir Ahmet said, “Hodja, you are the one who can find a Nasreddin Hodja,” “hey you guys, just tell me what the problem is”.

Sir Ahmet, “Hodja, Hasan claims that ‘if the world is a sphere, then I would go to the other side of the world using a tunnel that is dug from one side to the other side of the World’”.

Nasreddin Hodja, “I think it is a spectacular idea. Then, why are you mad with that? Why are you filling the opened hole?”.

Hasan, “Come on, Hodja! How do we know that the Earth is spherical? What if the world is flat? If it is flat, then we all fall into the hole and can’t come back. If it were spherical, wouldn’t those who were below the earth fall upside down?”.

Nasreddin Hodja was confused. Things that both Hasan and Ahmet said all made sense to him. He could not decide which one was right.

The Hodja could not think of an answer and took Karakacan and continued on his way. The men shouted! “Hodja! Where are you going? You have not found an answer, yet!”.

The Hodja shouted back, “Masters, let’s meet at the same place two days from now. I need to catch prayer time” [Nasreddin Hodja never says he does not know the answer].

He started off on his way with many questions in his mind. He started to talk to his donkey, “Karakacan, what shape do you think the Earth is? How would we find an answer to this question”. Suddenly, he had an idea. He thought he would invent a time machine and travel in time to meet people and listen to what they thought about it. Nasreddin Hodja worked hard and finally he invented a time machine and was ready for the journey. Will Hodja ever go without Karakacan? No way! He took the donkey and pressed the button on the machine.

First they went to ancient Egypt. Nasreddin Hodja and Karakacan started wandering around Egypt. When they saw a man, Hodja could not resist and asked, “Do you know that the Earth is spherical?” The Egyptian man was mad and he said, “What are you talking about, man, the Earth is like a box and the sky is like a lid of the box”. Other people around them were looking at confusedly. A man [Nasreddin Hodja] in a big turban cap on a donkey! Does such thing ever happen in the middle of the desert? Hodja was scared of people and said, “Karakacan, run, run, press that button”. Once again, they started traveling in time… Then, they went to ancient India and talked to people they met. Each of them said a different thing about the shape of the Earth. The widely accepted view was that the earth was carried on an elephant which had turtles under its feet and turtles swam in an endless sea.

Nasreddin Hodja was completely mixed up. They pressed the button and went a little further in time. This time, Hodja and Karakacan met with Christopher Columbus [Italian explorer], who was preparing to sail with three ships. Hodja asked, “Where are you heading to?” Columbus said, “If the Earth is spherical, we would return to where we start our trip”… Nasreddin Hodja decided to travel to the future when technology would be more advanced and scientific studies are carried out about earth and space. The he pressed the button and went to NASA where they met with scientists and saw lots of picture of Earth taken from space. These pictures showed that the Earth was spherical.

Then, they pressed the button and came back in time when they lived. Nasreddin Hodja made it to meet the two men on time. Sir Hasan and Sir Ahmet waited for the response.

Nasreddin Hoca: Masters, evidence is needed to explain a scientific phenomenon. The shape of the Earth thought to be flat or disk in the past. The explanation of this scientific phenomenon changed over time with the advancement of technology and in light of new evidence. We know that the Earth is spherical based on the current evidence we have.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Avsar Erumit, B., Akerson, V.L. Using Children’s Literature in the Middle School Science Class to Teach Nature of Science. Sci & Educ 31, 713–737 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00274-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00274-3

Navigation