Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

The Impact of a Course on Nature of Science Pedagogical Views and Rationales

Comparing Preservice Teachers in Their First Versus Second Experience

Abstract

This study explored changes in preservice teachers’ (PSTs) nature of science pedagogical (NOSP) views and nature of science (NOS) rationales using pre- and post-course written responses as well as interview data. Through systematic analysis, themes were generated and compared to the NOS literature. Comparisons between pre- and post-course data demonstrate improved and deepened NOS views, NOSP views that are more aligned with NOS literature, and a greater number of rationales for including NOS. All participants were enrolled in the “Inquiry and Natures of Science, Technology, and Engineering” (INSTE) course. However, six participants were enrolled in INSTE as their first course in which NOS and NOSP were addressed. The other six participants were enrolled in INSTE as their second course in which NOS and NOSP were addressed, with science methods as their first course in which NOS and NOSP were addressed. By comparing participants enrolled in INSTE as their first course to those enrolled in INSTE as their second course, we observed that NOS understanding seemed to develop in a first experience alongside some NOS rationales, but NOSP views lagged for participants in INSTE as their first course. Participants enrolled in INSTE as their second course developed more robust and literature-aligned NOSP views and more multifaceted NOS rationales. Therefore, this study bolsters arguments that teachers need to receive extended NOS and NOSP instruction.

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

References

  1. 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, 785–810.

  2. 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, 665–701.

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

  4. 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, 417–436.

  5. 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(10), 1025–1049.

  6. 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.

  7. Allchin, D. (2013). Teaching the nature of science: perspectives and resources. Saint Paul, MN: SHiPS Education Press.

  8. 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, 461–486.

  9. American Association for the Advancement of Sciences. (1990). Project 2061: science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  10. Aydin, S., Demirdöğen, B., Muslu, N., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2013). Professional journals as a source of PCK for teaching nature of science: an examination of articles published in The Science Teacher TST an NSTA Journal, 1995-2010. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(6), 977–997.

  11. Baldwin, M., Clough, M. P., & Greenbowe, T. (2017). A puzzle with many pieces: development of the periodic table. <https://storybehindthescience.org/pdf/periodic.pdf>. Accessed 20 May 2017.

  12. Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon ones conception of the nature of science. A follow-up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 563–581.

  13. Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487–509.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. Berland, L., & Crucet, K. (2016). Epistemological trade-offs. Accounting for context when evaluating epistemological sophistication of student engagement in scientific practices. Science Education, 100(1), 5–29.

  17. Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about nature of science. Are they happening? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 497–526.

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

  19. Clough, M. P. (2007). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post secondary students. Questions rather than tenets. The Pantaneto Forum, 25. Retrieved from http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue25/clough.htm. Accessed 20 May 2017.

  20. Clough, M. P. (2011). Teaching and assessing the nature of science. The Science Teacher, 78(6), 56–60.

  21. Clough, M. P., & Kruse, J. W. (2009). Characteristics of science: Understanding scientists and their work. Curricular Materials developed for NSF CCLI grant project: “Humanizing Science to Improve Teaching and Learning of Science”. http://www.storybehindthescience.org/. Accessed 20 May 2017.

  22. Dolan, T. J., Nichols, B. H., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Using socioscientific issues in primary classrooms. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(3), 1–12.

  23. Flammer, L. (2006). The importance of teaching the nature of science. The American Biology Teacher, 68(4), 197–198.

  24. Hammerich, P. L. (2002). Confronting students’ conceptions of the nature of science with cooperative controversy. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies (pp. 127–136). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

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

  26. 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.

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

  28. 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.

  29. Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2015). Pedagogical reflections by secondary science teachers at different NOS implementation levels. Research in Science Education, 1–24.

  30. 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.

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

  32. 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.

  33. Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching NOS within a controversial topic. Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 395–418.

  34. Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2007). Relationship between instructional context and views of NOS. International Journal of Research in Science Education, 29, 939–961.

  35. Kim, B. S., Ko, E. K., Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2005). A developmental continuum of pedagogical content knowledge for nature of science instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.

  36. Kruse, J. W. (2008). Improving practice: Wishful thinking or determined practice? Iowa Science Teachers Journal, 35(3), 2. http://ists.pls.uni.edu/ISTJ/index.html. Accessed 20 May 2017.

  37. Kruse, J. W. (2009). Learning theories: Pillars of teacher decision-making. Editorial for Iowa Science Teachers Journal, 36(2), p. 2–7.

  38. Kruse, J.W. (2010). Historical short stories in the post-secondary biology classroom: Investigation of instructor and student use and views. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

  39. Kruse, J.W. (2011). Using historical science stories to illuminate nature of science ideas and reduce stereotypical views in a sixth grade classroom. Paper presented at the Association for Science Teacher Educators International Conference, Minneapolis, MN, January.

  40. Kruse, J. (2013). Promoting middle school students’ understanding of the nature of technology. In Clough, Olson, & Niederhauser (Eds) The Nature of Technology: Implications for Learning and Teaching. Sense Publishers.

  41. Kruse, J. W., & Wilcox, J. L. (2013). Engaging students with the nature of science and the nature of technology by modeling the work of scientists. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 86(3), 109–115.

  42. 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.

  43. 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, 916–929.

  44. Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El, F. Khalick. (1998). Avoiding denatured science: activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationale; and Strategies, ed. W. McComas, 83–126.

  45. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2012). Nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry: building instructional capacity through professional development. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 335–359). Dordrecht: Springer.

  46. 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. 600–620). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

  47. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & 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, 497–521.

  48. 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.

  49. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: the role of history and philosophy of science. Abinfdon: Psychology Press.

  50. McComas, W. F. (2004). Keys to teaching the nature of science. Science Teacher, 71(9), 24–27.

  51. McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (2002). The nature of science in international standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  52. McComas, W. F., Clough, M. J., & Almazroa, H. (2002). The role and character of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies (pp. 3–39). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  53. Meyling, H. (1997). How to change students conceptions of the epistemology of science. Science and Education, 6, 397–416.

  54. National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

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

  56. National Science Teachers Association. (2000). NSTA position statement on the nature of science. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx. Accessed 20 May 2017.

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

  58. Patel, N., Kruse, J. W., Seebach, C., & Grulke, C. (2016). Comparing the implementation of NOS activities by preservice elementary teachers. Paper presented at the annual Association for Science Teacher Education International Conference, Reno, NV, January.

  59. Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

  60. Schwartz, R. S. (2007). Whats in a word? How word choice can develop misconceptions about the nature of science. Science Scope, 31(2), 42–47.

  61. Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Jersy: Rutgers University Press.

  62. Tobias, S. (1990). They’re not dumb, they’re different: stalking the second tier. Tucson, AZ: Research Council.

  63. 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.

  64. Wan, Z. H. & Wong, S. L. (2016). Hong Kong in-service teachers’ views on the values of teaching nature of science. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Baltimore, MD.

  65. Wilcox, J., & Potter, E. (2008). Painting an accurate picture of the nature of science. Iowa Science Teachers’ Journal, 35(2), 21–24.

  66. Williams, B., Clough, M. P., Stanley, M., Takle, E. S. & Colbert, J. T. (2017) The realization of global warming. <https://storybehindthescience.org/pdf/globalwarming.pdf>. Accessed 20 May 2017.

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

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Jaclyn M. Easter.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix

Appendix

Table A1 Course outline

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kruse, J.W., Easter, J.M., Edgerly, H.S. et al. The Impact of a Course on Nature of Science Pedagogical Views and Rationales. Sci & Educ 26, 613–636 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9916-0

Download citation