• Mehmet AydenizEmail author
  • Kader Bilican


The purpose of this study was to explore 15 graduate research assistants’ understanding of the nature of science. Data were collected through administration of a modified version of the Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire (VNOS-C). The findings suggest that graduate research assistants held underdeveloped views related to several nature of science (NOS) aspects including the argumentative nature of science, the process of modeling in science, scientists’ treatment of unexpected results, collaborative nature of science, and the process of theory formation. The discussion focuses on the missing link in preparation of future scientists and offers suggestions to address the learning needs of graduate research assistants regarding their understanding of NOS.

Key words

graduate science education nature of science novice scientists 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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(16), 2161–2184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Addy, T. M., & Blanchard, M. (2010). Graduate teaching assistants’ beliefs and practices following a reform-based program: Is reform attainable within the traditional laboratory structure? International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1045–1071.Google Scholar
  5. Aguirre, J. & Speer, N. M. (2000). Examining the relationship between beliefs and goals in teacher practice. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 18(3), 327–356.Google Scholar
  6. 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, 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bereiter, C. (1994). Implication of postmodernism for science education: A critique. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berland, L. & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.Google Scholar
  9. Berry, R. S. (2000). Graduate education in chemistry: A personal perspective on where it has been and where it might go. In National Research Council (Ed.), Graduate education in the chemical sciences: Issues for the 21 st century: Report of a workshop (pp. 27–36). Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bretz, S. L., Fay, M. E., Bruck, L. & Towns, M. H. (2013). What faculty interviews reveal about learning in the undergraduate laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(3), 281–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carey, S. & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charney, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Sofer, W., Neigborn, L., Coletta, S. & Nemeroff, M. (2007). Cognitive apprenticeship in science through immersion in laboratory practices. International Journal of Science Education, 29(2), 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Delamont, S. & Atkinson, P. (2001). Doctoring uncertainty: Mastering craft knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 31(1), 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunbar, K. (1997). How scientists think: Online creativity and conceptual change in science. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith & S. Vaid (Eds.), Conceptual structures and processes: Emergence, discovery, and change (pp. 461–493). Washington DC: APA Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dunbar, K. (2000). How scientists think in the real world: Implications for science education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H. & Shouse, A. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  19. Erduran, S., Simon, S. & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Feldman, A., Divoll, K. & Rogan-Klyve, A. (2009). Research education of new scientists: Implications for science teacher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 442–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Feldman, A., Divoll, K. A. & Rogan-Klyve, A. (2013). Becoming researchers: The participation of undergraduate and graduate students in scientific research groups. Science Education, 97, 218–243. doi: 10.1002/sce.21051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Florence, M. K. (2001). Learning to write like a scientist: A study of the enculturation of novice scientists into expert discourse communities by co-authoring research reports. British Columbia: University of Victoria.Google Scholar
  23. Florence, M. K. & Yore, L. D. (2004). Learning to write like a scientist: Co-authoring as an enculturation task. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(6), 637–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glasson, G. & Bentley, M. (2000). Epistemological undercurrents in scientists’ reporting of research to teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 84(4), 469–485.Google Scholar
  25. Harding, P. & Hare, W. (2000). Portraying science accurately in classrooms: Emphasizing open-mindedness rather than relativism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hergenhahn, B. R. & Henley, T. B. (2013). An introduction to the history of psychology (7th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage.Google Scholar
  27. Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundation for the 21st century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Khishfe, R. & Lederman, N. (2007). Relationship between instructional context and views of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 939–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Latour, B. (1987). The methodology of scientific research programmes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L. & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire (VNOS): Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Longino, H. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S. & Bonner, J. J. (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers’ use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1318–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  38. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Nersessian, N. J. (2006). The cognitive-cultural systems of the research laboratory. Organization Studies, 27(1), 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Neuman, W. L. (1997). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  41. Oh, P. S. & Oh, S. J. (2011). What teachers of science need to know about models: An overview. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1109–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  43. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers’ beliefs about NOS: Comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77(3), 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge and Keagan Paul.Google Scholar
  46. Rolin, K. (2008). Science as collective knowledge. Cognitive Systems Research, 9(1–2), 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schussler, E. & Bautista, N. (2012). Learning about nature of science in undergraduate biology laboratories. In Myint Swe Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 207–224). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118–137). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Schwartz, R. S. (2012). The nature of scientists’ nature of science views. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in the nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies (pp. 153–188). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schwartz, R. & Lederman, N. (2008). What scientists say: Scientists’ views of nature of science and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 727–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schwarz, C., Reiser, B., Davis, B., Andres, A., Fortus, D., Davis, E., Kenyon, L., Hug, B. & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression of scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L. & Passmore, P. M. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn (pp. 515–565). Washington DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  54. Stucky, A.P. (2005). Empirical grounding of the nature of scientific inquiry: A study of developing researchers. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS. Dissertations & Theses database (AAT 3196070).Google Scholar
  55. Sundberg, M., Armstrong, J. E. & Wischusen, E. W. (2005). A reappraisal of the status of introductory biology laboratory education in US colleges and universities. The American Biology Teacher, 67(9), 525–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J. & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wong, S. L. & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93, 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wray, K. B. (2002). The epistemic significance of collaborative research. Philosophy of Science, 6(1), 150–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yero, J. L. (2002). Teaching in mind: How teacher thinking shapes education. Hamilton: MindFlight Publishing.Google Scholar
  60. Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M. & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists’ views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 338–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Theory and Practice in Teacher Education, Graduate School of EducationThe University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Elementary Science EducationMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations