Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

If We Teach Them, They Can Learn: Young Students Views of Nature of Science During an Informal Science Education Program

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

There have been substantial reform efforts in science education to improve students’ understandings of science and its processes and provide continual support for students becoming scientifically literate (AAAS, Benchmarks for science literacy, Oxford University Press, New York, 1993; NRC, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996; NSTA, NSTA position statement: The nature of science, www.nsta.org/159&psid=22, 2000). Despite previous research, it is still unclear whether young children are actually developmentally ready to conceptualize the ideas that are recommended in the reforms (Akerson and Volrich, J Res Sci Teach 43:377–394, 2006). The purpose of this study was to explore how explicit-reflective instruction could improve young students’ understanding of NOS. During an informal education setting, the authors taught NOS aspects using explicit-reflective instruction. Overall the students participating in the program improved their understanding of the target aspects of NOS through use of explicit reflective instruction. However, the levels of improvement varied across different aspects. Students improved the most in their understanding of the tentative nature of science and the roles of observation in scientific work, although there was still some confusion regarding the distinction between observation and inference. More work needs to be done exploring these specific topics and the role explicit reflective practice can play in identifying the particular problems students have in distinguishing these constructs.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2001). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science, 22, 665–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abell, S., Martini, M., & George, M. (2001). ‘That’s what scientists have to do’: Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science during a moon investigation. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 109501109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). How should I know what scientists do?— I am just a kid: Fourth grade students' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 17, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., & Donnelly, L. A. (2009, May, on line version). Teaching nature of science to K-2 students: What understandings can they attain? International Journal of Science Education.

  • Akerson, V. L., Hanson, D., & Cullen, T. A. (2007). The influence of guided inquiry and explicit instruction on K-6 teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research and Science Teaching, 18, 751–772.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V., & Volrich, M. (2006). Teaching nature of science explicitly in a first-grade internship setting. Journal of Research and Science Teaching, 43, 377–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akindehin, F. (1988). Effect of an instructional package on preservice science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and acquisition of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 72, 73–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. W. (2007). Perspectives on science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook on science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychology, 41, 1123–1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). An experiment is when you try it and see if it works: A study of grade 7 students’ understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge [Special issue]. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 514–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Central Association of Science and Mathematics Teachers. (1907). A consideration of the principles that should determine the courses in biology in the secondary schools. School Science and Mathematics, 7, 241–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 582–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghein, A. (Eds.). (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gess-Newsome, J. (2004). The use and impact of explicit instruction about the Nature of Science and science inquiry in an elementary science methods course. Science & Education, 11, 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanuscin, D., & Park-Rogers, M. (2008). Learning to observe and infer. Science and Children, 45(6), 56–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leager, C. R. (2008). Observation versus inference. Science and Children, 2, 48–50.

    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). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    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 and Science Teaching, 39, 497–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, J. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2004). Early elementary students’ and teacher’s understandings of nature of science and scientific inquiry: Lessons learned from Project ICAN. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

  • Lederman, N. G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness of science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lionni, L. (1997). A color of his own. New York: Random House Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loughran, J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (1996). Ten myths of science: Reexaming what we think we know about the Nature of Science. School Science and Mathematics, 96(1), 10–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (2006). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Science education (pp. 28–57). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metz, K. E. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 219–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Teachers Association. (2000). NSTA position statement: The nature of science. Retrieved March 18, 2003, from www.nsta.org/159&psid=22.

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2003). The inquiry paradox: Why doing science doesn’t necessarily change ideas about science. In C. P. Constantinou & Z. C. Zacharia (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Intl. Computer-Based Learning in Science Conference 2003 (pp. 825–834). Nicosia, Cyprus.

  • Scharmann, L. C., Smith, M. U., James, M. C., & Jensen, M. (2005). Explicit reflective nature of science instruction: Evolution, intelligent design, and umbrellaology. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2004). Developing views of Nature of Science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between Nature of Science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students’ epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 349–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walls, L. (2009). Awakening a dialog: Examining gender and race in NOS studies from 1967 to 2008. Paper presented at the national association of research in science teaching (NARST), April 17–21, 2009, Orange County, CA.

  • Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Curriculum and Instruction, Science Education, Indiana University, 201 North Rose Avenue, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Cassie Quigley, Khemmawadee Pongsanon & Valarie L. Akerson

Authors
  1. Cassie Quigley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Khemmawadee Pongsanon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Valarie L. Akerson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cassie Quigley.

About this article

Cite this article

Quigley, C., Pongsanon, K. & Akerson, V.L. If We Teach Them, They Can Learn: Young Students Views of Nature of Science During an Informal Science Education Program. J Sci Teacher Educ 22, 129–149 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9201-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9201-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation