Advertisement

CONCEPTIONS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE—ARE THEY GENERAL OR CONTEXT SPECIFIC?

  • Detlef UrhahneEmail author
  • Kerstin Kremer
  • Juergen Mayer
Article

ABSTRACT

The study investigates the relationship between general and context-specific conceptions of the nature of science (NOS). The categorization scheme by Osborne et al. (J Res Sci Teach 40:692–720, 2003) served as the theoretical framework of the study. In the category nature of scientific knowledge, the certainty, development, simplicity, justification, and source of scientific knowledge were distinguished. In the category methods of science, the purpose of science and the creativity of scientists were mentioned. The study was conducted with 221 secondary school students, who filled in a 40-item questionnaire on general NOS conceptions. Furthermore, students were provided with different contexts by a short description of 10 scientific theories. After the theory introduction, students indicated context-specific conceptions as well as the importance and familiarity of each theory. Study results show that higher familiarity with scientific theories is related to a more informed view about the general nature of science. Correlational analyses illustrate that context-specific and general conceptions about NOS are not independent from each other but have a mutual core. Context-specific conceptions are not so different from their general counterparts that these aspects cannot be combined in a NOS questionnaire.

KEY WORDS

epistemological beliefs general science nature of science (NOS) secondary 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2006). Over and over again: College students’ views of nature of science. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 389–425). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2009). The influence of metacognitive training on preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 2161–2184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2001). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: A yearlong case study on a fourth-grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 1025–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J. A., & McDuffie, A. R. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers’ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 194–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students ‘ideas-about-science’: Five dimensions of effective practice. Science & Education, 88, 655–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bianchini, J. A., & Colburn, A. (2000). Teaching the nature of science through inquiry to prospective elementary teachers: A tale of two teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 177–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buehl, M. M., Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Conceptions about schooled knowledge: Domain specific or domain general? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 415–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen, S. (2006). Development of an instrument to assess views on nature of science and attitudes toward teaching science. Science & Education, 90, 803–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ response to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 15(4), 465–494.Google Scholar
  17. Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dagher, Z. R., Brickhouse, N. W., Shipman, H., & Letts, W. J. (2004). How some college students represent their understandings of the nature of scientific theories. International Journal of Science Education, 26(6), 735–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dogan, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish grade 10 students’ and science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Elder, A. D. (2002). Characterizing fifth grade students’ epistemological beliefs in science. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology. The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Hanuscin, D. L., Akerson, V. L., & Phillipson-Mower, T. (2006). Integrating nature of science instruction into a physical science content course for preservice elementary teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants. Science & Education, 90, 912–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140.Google Scholar
  25. Howe, E. M., & Rudge, D. W. (2005). Recapitulating the history of sickle-cell anemia research. Improving students’ NOS views explicitly and reflectively. Science & Education, 14, 423–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ibrahim, B., Buffler, A., & Lubben, F. (2009). Profiles of freshman physics students’ views on the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 248–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Irez, S. (2006). Are we prepared?: An assessment of preservice science teacher educators’ beliefs about nature of science. Science & Education, 90, 1113–1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science & Education, 84, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2005). Examining students’ views on the nature of science: Results from 6th, 8th, and 10th graders. Science & Education, 89, 314–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Khishfe, R. (2008). The development of seventh graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 470–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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, 551–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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, 187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kremer, K., Urhahne, D., & Mayer, J. (2008). Relationship between students’ general and context-specific beliefs on the nature of science. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Baltimore, MD, United States.Google Scholar
  34. Labudde, P. (2000). Konstruktivismus im Physikunterricht der Sekundarstufe II [Constructivism in physics lessons of secondary level II]. Bern, Switzerland: Haupt.Google Scholar
  35. Leach, J., Millar, R., Ryder, J., & Séré, M.-G. (2000). Epistemological understanding in science learning: the consistency of representations across contexts. Learning and Instruction, 10, 497–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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, 331–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  38. 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, 497–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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, 773–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lin, H.-S., Chiu, H.-L., & Chou, C.-Y. (2004). Student understanding of the nature of science and their problem-solving strategies. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liu, S.-Y., & Lederman, N. G. (2007). Exploring prospective teachers’ worldviews and conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(10), 1281–1307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mamlok-Naaman, R., Ben-Zvi, R., Hofstein, A., Menis, J., & Erduran, S. (2005). Learning science through a historical approach: Does it affect the attitudes of non-science-oriented students towards science? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, 485–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17, 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McComas, W. F., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M. P. (1998). The nature of science in science education: An introduction. Science & Education, 7, 511–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  46. Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Härle, F. C. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 3–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  48. 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 expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Priemer, B. (2003). Ein diagnostischer Test zu Schüleransichten über Physik und Lernen von Physik—eine deutsche Version des Tests ‘Views about Science Survey’ [A diagnostic test on students’ views about physics and physics learning—a German version of the test ‘Views about Science Survey’]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 9, 160–178.Google Scholar
  50. Rubba, P. A., & Andersen, H. O. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students’ understanding of scientific knowledge. Science & Education, 62, 449–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2009). An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 18, 561–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ryan, M. P. (1984). Monitoring text comprehension: Individual differences in epistemological standards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 248–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schommer, M. (1998). The influence of age and education on epistemological beliefs. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 551–562.Google Scholar
  54. Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Dunkle, M. E. (2002). Development and validation of the epistemic belief inventory (EBI). In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology. The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 261–275). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  55. Solomon, J., Scott, L., & Duveen, J. (1996). Large-scale exploration of pupils’ understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 80, 493–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., & Sowell, S. (2006). Describing teachers’ conceptual ecologies for the nature of science. Science & Education, 90, 874–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stathopoulou, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2007). Exploring the relationship between physics-related epistemological beliefs and physics understanding. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 255–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tobin, K., & Robbie, C. J. (1997). Beliefs about the nature of science and the enacted science curriculum. Science & Education, 6, 355–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Trautwein, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2007a). Predicting global and topic certainty beliefs: Domain-specificity and the role of the academic environment. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 907–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Trautwein, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2007b). Epistemological beliefs, school achievement, and college major: A large-scale longitudinal study on the impact of certainty beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 348–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Urhahne, D., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2008). Welches Verständnis haben Jugendliche von der Natur der Naturwissenschaften? Entwicklung und erste Schritte zur Validierung eines Fragebogens [What is adolescents’ understanding of the nature of science? Development and first steps to validation of a questionnaire]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 36(1), 72–94.Google Scholar
  62. Van Dijk, E. M., & Reydon, T. A. C. (2010). A conceptual analysis of evolutionary theory for teacher education. Science & Education, 19, 655–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wood, P., & Kardash, C. (2002). Critical elements in the design and analysis of studies of epistemology. In B. K. P. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 231–260). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology of Excellence in Business and EducationLudwig-Maximilians-University MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Biology EducationJustus-Liebig-University GiessenGiessenGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Biology—Biology EducationUniversity of KasselKasselGermany

Personalised recommendations