Abstract
To enhance students’ understanding of nature of science (NOS), teachers need adequate pedagogical content knowledge related to NOS. The educational design research study presented here describes the design and development of a pre-service chemistry teacher education course on NOS instruction. The study documents two iterative cycles of problem analysis, design, implementation, and evaluation. The main aims of the study were (1) to create an in-depth and detailed description of the process used in the development of the course and the design solutions produced, and (2) to evaluate how the design solutions affected participants’ commitment to teach NOS. Based on the problem analysis based on challenges recognized from the previous research, three design solutions were produced: (1) definition of central dimensions of domain-specific NOS for chemistry education, (2) teaching cycle for explicit and structured opportunities for reflection and discussion, and (3) design assignments to translate NOS understanding into classroom practice. The major data-sources used in the evaluation of the design solutions were the four in-depth interviews conducted after the course. Based on the evaluation, the design solutions supported internalizing understanding of NOS and transforming the understanding to instruction. Supporting the implementation of new innovative teaching practices such as NOS instruction in pre-service teacher education is a challenge. However, the success of the participants in implementing NOS instruction demonstrates, that a pre-service teacher education course can be successful in producing early adopters of NOS instruction and thus might be one of the first steps in injecting NOS instruction into the curriculum.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For a detailed description of the programme see Aksela (2010).
In Finland, comprehensive school typically starts the year child turns 7. Chemistry starts on the fifth year of comprehensive school, but is usually taught then by a primary school teacher. Chemistry teachers start teaching on the seventh year of comprehensive school.
During the initial problem analysis, a fourth challenge was also recognized. It has been argued that a discrete course on NOS might disconnect from science content and thus possibly dilute its relevance (see e.g. McComas et al. 1998). This challenge was acknowledged by arranging research group visits and by engaging practicing scientists in the group discussions. The description and evaluation of this aspect of the course has been presented in Vesterinen and Aksela (2009).
As in other Nordic countries, gender equity in Finland is exceptionally high. In Nordic countries, female participation in politics and the labor market is among the highest in the world. However, the number of women entering studies in science and engineering is low. Women seem to be turning their backs on science and engineering. This is not because of the lack of self-confidence, but rather due to value orientations and emotional and personal factors. Girls seem not to relate to the culture and ideals of science presented in traditional school science (Sjøberg 2000b). Thus, narrow perceptions of who does science and how science is done seem to discourage many qualified individuals from studying science even in countries with high gender equity. Discussion about the barriers of science as well as examples of women scientists discussed in the plan of instruction designed by the participants might inspire more women to take part in science (see e.g. Harding 1991).
Even though teachers’ conceptions of good teaching and their own teaching is not straightforward, changes in teacher’s conceptions of good teaching are sine qua non for changing the teaching approach of the teacher. Thus influencing conceptions of good teaching is prerequisite of implementing new teaching approaches such as NOS instruction. About the importance of intention to teach NOS for the success in NOS instruction (see Lederman et al. 2001).
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Oregon State University, Oregon.
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, 15–42.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning about nature of science as conceptual change: Factors that mediate the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88, 785–810.
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.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000a). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000b). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1057–1095.
Adúriz-Bravo, A., & Izquierdo-Aymerich, M. (2009). A research-informed instructional unit to teach the nature of science to pre-service science teachers. Science & Education, 18, 1177–1192.
Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Aksela, M. (2010). Evidence-based teacher education: Becoming a lifelong research-oriented chemistry teacher? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 11, 84–91.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
Bannan, B. (2009). The integrative learning design framework: An illustrated example from the domain of instructional technology. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), An introduction to educational design research (pp. 53–71). Enschede: SLO, Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.
Barnett, J., & Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical content knowledge: Toward a fuller understanding of what good science teachers know. Science Education, 85, 426–453.
Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students ‘ideas-about-science’: Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88, 655–682.
Bell, P., Hoadley, C. M., & Linn, M. C. (2004). Design-based research in education. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 73–85). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon one’s conception of the nature of science: A follow-up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 536–581.
Bianchini, J. A., & Solomon, E. M. (2003). Constructing views of science tied to issues of equity and diversity: A study of beginning science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 53–76.
Clark, C., & Peterson, P. (1986). Teacher’s thought process. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255–296). New York, NY: MacMillan.
Clough, M. (2007). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students: Questions rather than tenets. The Pantaneto Forum, 25. http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue25/clough.htm. Accessed May 2012.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32, 9–13.
Crawford, B. A. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an inquiry-based classroom? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 175–194.
Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 613–642.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dalgety, J., Coll, R. K., & Jones, A. (2003). Development of chemistry attitudes and experiences questionnaire (CAEQ). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 649–668.
Davis, K. S. (2003). ‘Change is hard’: What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science & Education, 87, 3–20.
Dede, C. (2004). If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? A commentary on Collins, Joseph, and Soloway in the JLS special issue on design-based research. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 105–114.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32, 5–8.
Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. A. (1977). The practicality ethic in teacher decision-making. Interchange, 8, 1–12.
Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 105–121.
Erduran, S. (2001). Philosophy of chemistry: An emerging field with implications for chemistry education. Science & Education, 10, 581–593.
Erduran, S., & Scerri, E. (2002). The nature of chemical knowledge and chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 7–28). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Finnish National Board of Education. (2003). National core curriculum for upper secondary schools 2003. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer.
Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from a learning design perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 17–51). London: Routledge.
Harding, S. G. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking of women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative Future. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 645–670.
Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy: A teachers’ guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 160–189.
Höttecke, D., Henke, A., & Riess, F. (2010). Implementing history and philosophy in science teaching: Strategies, methods, results and experiences from the European HIPST project. Science & Education (published online December 10, 2010).
Höttecke, D., & Riess, F. (2009). Developing and implementing case studies for teaching science with the help of history and philosophy: Framework and critical perspectives on ‘HIPST’—A European approach for the inclusion of history and philosophy in science teaching. Paper presented at the tenth international history, philosophy, and science teaching conference, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, USA, June 24–28, 2009.
Höttecke, D., & Silva, C. C. (2011). Why implementing history and philosophy in school science education is a challenge: An analysis of obstacles. Science & Education, 20, 293–316.
Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84, 5–26.
Johnson, R. B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 118, 282–292.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Johnson Holubec, E. (1990). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Juuti, K., & Lavonen, J. (2006). Design-based research in science education. NorDiNa: Nordic Studies in Science Education, 3, 54–68.
Kelly, A. E. (2006). Quality criteria for design research: Evidence and commitments. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 3–7). London: Routledge.
Kelly, A. E. (2009). When is design research appropriate? In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), An introduction to educational design research (pp. 73–87). Enschede: SLO, Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.
Kiikeri, M., & Ylikoski, P. (2004). Tiede tutkimuskohteena—filosofinen johdatus tieteentutkimukseen [Science as a research subject—Philosophical introduction to science studies]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus Kirja.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group process (pp. 33–57). London: Wiley.
Kolstø, S. D. (2008). Science education for democratic citizenship through the use of the history of science. Science & Education, 17, 977–997.
Koszalka, T. A., Breman, J., & Moore, M. K. (1999). Sharing lesson planning over the World Wide Web: Important components. Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 4, 143–151.
Kovac, J. (2004). The ethical chemist: Professionalism and ethics in science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
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.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. (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.
Lederman, N. G., Schwartz, R. S., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Bell, R. L. (2001). Pre-service teachers’ understanding and teaching of nature of science: An intervention study. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1, 135–160.
Lin, E. (2006). Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Science Teacher, 73(5), 34–39.
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.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Cuba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lombardi, O., & Labarca, M. (2007). The philosophy of chemistry as a new resource for chemistry education. Journal of Chemical Education, 84, 187–192.
Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of an inquiry-based professional development programme on beginning and experiences secondary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 517–534.
Markic, S., Valanides, N., & Eilks, I. (2006). Freshman science student teachers’ beliefs on science teaching and learning: A mixed methods study. In I. Eilks & B. Ralle (Eds.), Towards research-based science teacher education (pp. 29–40). Aachen: Shaker Verlag.
Matthews, M. R. (2004). Thomas Kuhn’s impact on science education: What lessons can be learned? Science Education, 88, 90–118.
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). Heidelberg: Springer.
McComas, W. F. (2004). Keys to teaching the nature of science. Science Teacher, 71(9), 24–27.
McComas, W. F., & Almazroa, H. (1998). Nature of science in science education: An introduction. Science & Education, 7, 511–532.
McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). A review of the role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 3–39). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
McKenney, S., Nieveen, N., & van den Akker, J. (2006). Design research from a curriculum perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 3–7). London: Routledge.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Millar, R. (2004). The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science. Paper prepared for the meeting High school science laboratories: Role and vision. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Munby, H., Cunningham, M., & Lock, C. (2000). School science culture: A case study of barriers to developing professional knowledge. Science Education, 84, 193–211.
Niaz, M. (2008). What ‘ideas-about-science’ should be taught in school science? A chemistry teachers’ perspective. Instructional Science, 36, 233–249.
Niaz, M. (2009). Progressive transitions in chemistry teachers’ understanding of nature of science based on historical controversies. Science & Education, 18, 43–65.
Nieveen, N. (2009). Formative evaluation in educational design research. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), An introduction to educational design research (pp. 89–101). Enschede: SLO, Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.
Nieveen, N., McKenney, S., & van den Akker, J. (2006). Educational design research: The value of variety. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 151–158). London: Routledge.
Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1998). A programme for developing understanding of the nature of science in teacher education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 293–313). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Oikkonen, J., Lavonen, J., Krzywacki-Vainio, H., Aksela, M., Krokfors, L., & Saarikko, H. (2007). Pre-service teacher education in chemistry, mathematics and physics. In E. Pehkonen, M. Ahtee, & J. Lavonen (Eds.), How Finns learn mathematics and science (pp. 49–69). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
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 the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Education, 40, 692–720.
Osborne, J., Duschl, R., & Fairbrother, R. (2002). Breaking the mould? Teaching science for public understanding. A report commissioned by the Nuffield Foundation. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/01/32/03/breaking.pdf. Accessed May 2012.
Plomp, T. (2009). Educational design research: An introduction. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), An introduction to educational design research (pp. 9–35). Enschede: SLO, Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.
Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.
Rogan, J. M., & Grayson, D. J. (2003). Towards a theory of curriculum implementation with particular reference to science education in developing countries. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1171–1204.
Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. Glencoe: Free Press.
Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., Carambo, C., & Dalland, C. (2004). Coteaching: Creating resources for learning and learning to teach in urban high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 882–904.
Russell, T., McPherson, S., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Coherence and collaboration in teacher education reform. Canadian Journal of Education, 26, 37–55.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). ‘It’s the nature of the beast’: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 205–236.
Sheldon, K. M., & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Self-concordance, goal attainment, and the pursuit of happiness: Can there be an upward spiral? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 152–165.
Sjøberg, S. (2000a). Naturvetenskap som allmänbildning—en kritisk ämnesdidaktik [Scientific literacy—A critical subject didactic]. Lund: Studentliteratur.
Sjøberg, S. (2000b). ‘Science for all’: Time for a paradigm shift. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Sjöström, J. (2007). The discourse of chemistry (and beyond). HYLE: International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 13, 83–97.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scot, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 409–421.
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Tsai, C.-C. (2002). Nested epistemologies: Science teachers’ beliefs of teaching, learning and science. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 771–783.
Tynjälä, P., Mason, L., & Lonka, K. (Eds.). (2001). Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Understanding Science. (2009). University of California, Museum of Paleontology. http://www.understandingscience.org. Accessed May 2012.
van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Introducing educational design research. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 3–7). London: Routledge.
Vesterinen, V.-M., & Aksela, M. (2009). A novel course of chemistry as a scientific discipline: How do prospective teachers perceive nature of chemistry through visits to research groups? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10, 132–141.
Vesterinen, V.-M., Aksela, M., & Lavonen, J. (2011). Quantitative analysis of representations of nature of science in Nordic upper secondary school textbooks using framework of analysis based on philosophy of chemistry. Science & Education (published online (pre-print) October 18, 2011).
Vesterinen, V.-M., Aksela, M., & Sundberg, M. R. (2009). Nature of chemistry in the national frame curricula for upper secondary education in Finland, Norway and Sweden. NorDiNa, 5, 200–212.
Vesterinen, V.-M., Pernaa, J., & Aksela, M. (2012). Evaluation of educational design methodology utilizing concept mapping. In C. Bruguière, A. Tiberghien, & P. Clément (Eds.), E-book proceedings of the ESERA 2011 conference, Lyon France: Science learning and citizenship (pp. 142–146). http://lsg.ucy.ac.cy/esera/e_book/base/ebook-esera2011.pdf. Accessed May 2012.
Waters-Adams, S. (2006). The relationship between understanding the nature of science and practice: The influence of teachers’ beliefs about education, teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 919–944.
Zeichner, K. (1996). Teachers as reflective practitioners and the democratization of school reform. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. L. Gomez (Eds.), Currents of reform in preservice teacher education (pp. 199–214). New York: Teachers College Press.
Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483–496.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the (former and current) pre-service teachers who took part in the study, and especially to the four teachers who agreed to be in-depth interviewed. The authors would also like to acknowledge the thorough and insightful comments of the anonymous referees and our distinguished colleagues professor Jari Lavonen and doctor Johannes Pernaa, who helped us immensely in improving this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vesterinen, VM., Aksela, M. Design of Chemistry Teacher Education Course on Nature of Science. Sci & Educ 22, 2193–2225 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9506-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9506-0