Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Practice-Based Approach to Learning Nature of Science through Socioscientific Issues

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The nature of science (NOS) has been recognised as an essential component for engagement with socioscientific issues (SSI). However, the findings on the link between the two have been inconclusive. This calls for a shift from students merely knowing about NOS, to using their understanding of it as a tool for decision-making and participation in debates about SSI. This study set out to devise and implement a practice-based SSI intervention programme (12 weeks) and to examine its effect on students’ use of NOS understanding and multi-perspective evaluation of SSI. The participants were 110 undergraduate students with different majors. Data were collected through questionnaires, reflective tasks and follow-up interviews. The programme improved students’ use of NOS understanding and multi-perspective evaluation of SSI. Statistical analyses of pre- and post-course performance revealed a significant shift to the use of NOS understanding, in particular the social aspects of the sources of information (p < .00001). Explicit teaching on the development of NOS understanding and its use, hands-on practice across contexts, peer interactions and emphasis on a layperson’s perspective were found to account for the change. These findings support a change in practice in learning about science and offer empirical support to the call for a shift from students’ merely knowing about NOS, to actively applying their understanding of it.

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., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 918–942.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2012). Toward clarity on whole science and KNOWS. Science Education, 96(4), 693–700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2017). Beyond the consensus view: Whole science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 18–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D., Andersen, H., & Nielsen, K. (2014). Complementary approaches to teaching nature of science: Integrating inquiry, historical cases and contemporary cases in classroom practice. Science Education, 98(3), 461–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., & Chinn, C. A. (2018). On the goals of epistemic education: Promoting apt epistemic performance. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(3), 353–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2014). Reconsidering personal epistemology as metacognition: A multi-faceted approach to the analysis of epistemic thinking. Educational Psychologist, 49(1), 13–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082–1112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brophy, J. (2008). Developing students’ appreciation for what is taught in school. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 132–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang Rundgren, S., & Rundgren, C. (2010). SEE-SEP: From a separate to a holistic view of socioscientific issues. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1, article 2), 1-24.

  • Chinn, C. A., Rinehart, R. W., & Buckland, L. A. (2014). Epistemic cognition and evaluating information: Applying the AIR model of epistemic cognition. In D. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information (pp. 425–454). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cofré, H., Núñez, P., Santibáñez, D., Pavez, J. M., Valencia, M., & Vergara, C. (2019). A critical review of students’ and teachers’ understandings of nature of science. Science & Education, 28(3–5), 205–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deng, F., Chen, D., Tsai, C., & Chai, C. (2011). Students’ views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Education, 95(6), 961–999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. G., Chinn, C. A., & Barzilai, S. (2018). Grasp of evidence: Problematizing and expanding the next generation science standards’ conceptualization of evidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 907–937.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289–2315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. (2008). ‘Grasp of practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 147–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the next generation science standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041–1048.

    Google Scholar 

  • González-García, F. J., Blanco-López, Á., España-Ramos, E., & Franco-Mariscal, A. J. (2019). The nature of science and citizenship: A Delphi analysis. Research in Science Education.

  • Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision-making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 551–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2014). Nature of science in the science curriculum: Origin, development, implications and shifting emphases. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 911–970). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7), 591–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2019). A conceptual analysis of perspective taking: Positioning a tangled construct within science education and beyond. Science & Education, 28, 605–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karisan, D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2017). Contextualization of nature of science within the socioscientific issues framework: A review of research. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(2), 139–152.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific issues: An effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 974–1016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R. (2017). Consistency of nature of science views across scientific and socioscientific contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 39(4), 403–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R. (2019). The transfer of nature of science understandings: A question of similarity and familiarity of contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 41(9), 1159–1180.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 377–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2007). Relationship between instructional context and views of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 939–961.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (1990). The division of cognitive labor. The Journal of Philosophy, 87(1), 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K. ... & Ulvik, M. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632–655.

  • Korpan, C. A., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., & Henderson, J. M. (1997). Assessing literacy in science: Evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education, 81(5), 515–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics, 33(1), 159-174.

  • Leden, L., & Hansson, L. (2019). Nature of science progression in school year 1–9: A case study of teachers’ suggestions and rationales. Research in Science Education, 49(2), 591–611.

    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. 831–879). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding denatured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 (Vol. II, pp. 600–620). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. E. 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(6), 497–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23(2), 285–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, J. S. C. (2020). Students’ adherences to epistemic understanding in evaluating scientific claims. Science Education. 104(2), 164–192.

  • Leung, J. S. C., Wong, A.S.L., & Yung, B.H.W. (2015). Understandings of nature of science and multiple perspective evaluation of science news by non-science majors. Science & Education, 24(7), 887–912.

  • Leung, J. S. C., Wong, A.S.L., & Yung, B.H.W. (2017). Evaluation of science in the media by non-science majors. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(3), 219–236.

  • Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research, concepts and methodologies (pp. 3–26). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClune, B., & Jarman, R. (2010). Critical reading of science-based news reports: Establishing a knowledge, skills and attitudes framework. International Journal of Science Education, 32(6), 727–752.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R. (2006). Twenty first century science: Insights from the design and implementation of a scientific literacy approach in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(13), 1499–1521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M. (2009). Critical appraisal of physical science as a human enterprise: Dynamics of scientific progress. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science + Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P. (1995). Learning to live with scientific expertise: Towards a theory of intellectual communalism for guiding science teaching. Science Education, 79(2), 201–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, J. K. (2018). The inclusion of the nature of science in nine recent international science education standards documents. Science & Education, 27(7–8), 637–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Positive emotions in education. In E. Frydenberg (Ed.), Beyond coping: Meeting goals, visions, and challenges (pp. 149–174). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S., Osborne, J., & Erduran, S. (2003). Systemic teacher development to enhance the use of argumentation in school science activities. In J. Wallace & J. Loughran (Eds.), Leadership and professional development in science education (pp. 198–217). London, UK: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G. M., & Chinn, C. A. (2011). Thinking and reasoning in science: Promoting epistemic conceptual change. In K. Harris, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook series: Critical theories and models of learning and development relevant to learning and teaching (Vol. 1, pp. 257–282). Washington, DC: APA Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2014). Student thinking and learning in science: Perspectives on the nature and development of learners’ ideas. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, E. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95(6), 1086–1100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S. L., Hodson, D., Kwan, J., & Yung, B. H. W. (2009). Turning crisis into opportunity: Nature of science and scientific inquiry as illustrated in the scientific research on severe acute respiratory syndrome. Science & Education, 18(1), 95–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S. L., Wan, Z., & Cheng, M. W. (2011). Learning nature of science through socio-scientific issues. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). High school students’ informal reasoning regarding a socio-scientific issue, with relation to scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structures. International Journal of Science Education, 33(3), 371–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yacoubian, H. A. (2015). A framework for guiding future citizens to think critically about nature of science and socioscientific issues. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 15(3), 248–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education. In The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7–38). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong

    Jessica Shuk Ching Leung

Authors
  1. Jessica Shuk Ching Leung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica Shuk Ching Leung.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Essay Writing Task

Part I: Evaluation of Science in the Media

As an educated layperson (NOT a scientist!!), read these two articles and answer the questions.

Article 1: Environmentalists are urging the USDA to reject this genetically engineered eucalyptus tree.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/08/08/environmentalists-are-urging-the-usda-to-reject-this-genetically-engineered-eucalyptus-tree/?utm_term=.ee6fced431a6

Article 2: Scepticism surfaces over CRISPR human embryo editing claims.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/skepticism-surfaces-over-crispr-human-embryo-editing-claims

  1. 1.

    With respect to Article 1, should the USDA approve or restrict the commercial production of the genetically engineered eucalyptus tree? Why? Provide as many reasons as possible to justify your choice.

  2. 2.

    With respect to Article 2, do you believe that Mitalipov and his team repaired the mutated paternal gene using CRISPR? Why? Provide as many reasons as possible to justify your choice.

Part II: Reflection (for week 12 essay only)

  1. 3.

    Comparing the answer in Part I with your previous answer, has your standpoint and its justifications changed?

If yes, explain how it differs from your previous answer and how this change was brought about. You can refer to, but are not limited to, the learning experience in this course.

If no, explain how your view may have been reinforced. You can refer to, but are not limited to, the learning experience in this course.

Appendix 2: Interview Protocol

There is no right or wrong answer to the questions. It is your view that we value.

  1. 1.

    Do you find a difference in your evaluation of science in the media between the beginning of the course, the end of the course and now (i.e., 12 weeks after completing the course)? If yes, why is there such a difference? What explains the change?

  2. 2.

    I notice that in the post-course essay, you justified your viewpoint based on _______________ [criteria related to NOS understanding], but you did not do so at the beginning of the course. Could you tell me how your perspective was changed?

Appendix 3

Table 4 Description of criteria
Full size table

Appendix 4

Table 5 Student excerpts
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leung, J.S.C. A Practice-Based Approach to Learning Nature of Science through Socioscientific Issues. Res Sci Educ 52, 259–285 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09942-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09942-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation