Teachers’ Longitudinal NOS Understanding After Having Completed a Science Teacher Education Program

  • Benjamin C. HermanEmail author
  • Michael P. Clough


The study reported here investigated experienced teachers’ views on several nature of science (NOS) issues 2 to 5 years after they completed a demanding secondary science teacher education program in which the NOS was an extensive and recurring component. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed to determine study participants’ NOS understanding. Study participant’s NOS views were determined to be generally accurate and robust, suggesting that experiences in their science teacher education program had a long-lasting positive impact on NOS understanding. The preservice program that study participants completed has several unique features that may account for that long-lasting impact and has implications for preservice and inservice science teacher education professional development.


Nature of science Science teacher education 

Supplementary material

10763_2014_9594_MOESM1_ESM.docx (32 kb)
ESM Table 1 (DOCX 31 kb)
10763_2014_9594_MOESM2_ESM.docx (32 kb)
ESM Table 2 (DOCX 31 kb)
10763_2014_9594_MOESM3_ESM.docx (31 kb)
ESM Table 3 (DOCX 31 kb)
10763_2014_9594_MOESM4_ESM.docx (41 kb)
ESM Table 4 (DOCX 40 kb)
10763_2014_9594_MOESM5_ESM.docx (34 kb)
ESM Table 5 (DOCX 34 kb)
10763_2014_9594_MOESM6_ESM.docx (43 kb)
ESM Table 6 (DOCX 43.4 kb)


  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Akerson, V. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the development of preservice teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88(5), 785–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aikenhead, G. S. & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: Views on Science-Technology-Science (VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aikenhead, G. S., Ryan, A. G. & Fleming, R. W. (1989). Views on Science-Technology-Society: Form Retrieved from
  5. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Allchin, D. (2013). Teaching the nature of science: Perspectives and resources. St. Paul, MN: SHiPS Education Press.Google Scholar
  7. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington, DC., Author.Google Scholar
  8. Backhus, D. A. & Thompson, K. W. (2006). Addressing the nature of science in preservice science teacher preparation programs: Science educator perceptions. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(1), 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, N. (1953). What is science? New York, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
  10. Clough, M. P. (1997). Strategies and activities for initiating and maintaining pressure on students’ naïve views concerning the nature of science. Interchange, 28(2–3), 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clough, M. P. (2004). The nature of science: Understanding how the “game” of science is played. Chapter 8. In J. Weld (Ed.), The game of science education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clough, M. P. (2007). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students: Questions rather than tenets, The Pantaneto Forum, Issue 25. Retrieved from
  14. Clough, M. P. (2011). Teaching and assessing the nature of science: How to effectively incorporate the nature of science in your classroom. The Science Teacher, 78(6), 56–60.Google Scholar
  15. Clough, M. P. (2014). The role of visual data in effectively teaching about the nature of science. In K. Finson & J. Pederson (Eds.), Application of visual data in K-16 classrooms. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  16. Clough, M. P., Berg, C. A. & Olson, J. K. (2009). Promoting effective science teacher education and science teaching: A framework for teacher decision-making. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(4), 821–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clough, M. P., Herman, B. C., Smith, J., Kruse J. W. & Wilcox, J. (2010). Seamlessly teaching science content and the nature of science. Paper presented at the 2010 Association for Science Teacher Education Conference, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
  18. Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Conover, W. J. (1999). Practical nonparametric statistics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Cromer, A. (1993). Uncommon sense: The heretical nature of science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Feilzer, M. Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grissom, R. J. & Kim, J. J. (2005). Effect sizes for research: A broad practical approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Plano-Clark, V. L., Petska, K. S. & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 224–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P. & Olson, J. K. (2013). Teachers’ NOS implementation practices two to five years after having completed an intensive science education program. Science Education, 97(2), 271–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Horner, J. K. & Rubba, P. A. (1979). The laws are mature theories fable. The Science Teacher, 46(2), 31.Google Scholar
  27. Khishfe, R. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry oriented instruction on sixth graders views of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(7), 551–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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(8), 916–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. 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. Scholar
  31. Matthews, M. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Matthews, M. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). Chapter 1. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. McComas, W. F. (Ed.). (1998). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  34. Medawar, P.B. (1963). Is the scientific paper a fraud? In P.B. Medawar, (1990). The threat and the glory: Reflections on science and scientists. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  35. Mitchell, S. (2009). Unsimple truths: Science, complexity, and policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  37. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  38. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Rubba, P. A., Bradford, C. S. & Harkness, W. J. (1996). A new scoring procedure for the Views on Science-Technology-Society instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 18(4), 387–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rubba, P. A. & Harkness, W. L. (1993). Examination of preservice and in-service secondary science teachers’ beliefs about science-technology-society interactions. Science Education, 77(4), 407–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rudolph, J. L. & Stewart, J. (1998). Evolution and the nature of science: On the historical discord and its implications for education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1069–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wolpert, L. (1992). The unnatural nature of science. London, England: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of South FloridaTampaUSA
  2. 2.Iowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations