Abstract
An understanding of how science is enacted and how scientific knowledge is generated, or the nature of science (NOS), is a major goal of science education. NOS views have almost exclusively been assessed using the Views of Nature of Science (VNOS) suite of instruments, which consists of open-ended questions. The purpose of this study was to investigate the utility of performing an Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA) from VNOS-B responses, using the group as the unit of analysis. Traditional scoring of the VNOS responses demonstrated that overall, participants shifted from emerging to more sophisticated views across all elements. An ENA provided a quick visualization of how participants connected NOS ideas. With regard to accuracy of participants’ NOS understandings as a group, findings from traditional VNOS analysis and ENA converged on two main points, improvement of overall quality of knowledge and the identification of missing elements of NOS from responses. Some changes in participants’ NOS understanding were identifiable in results from only the ENA. For example, prior to instruction, ENA showed three naive ideas about empiricism. After instruction, no naive statements remained in the responses about the empirical nature of science. ENA extends the traditional VNOS analysis by enabling the pinpointing of particular ideas that are meaningful to the group, indicating clusters of ideas that are related, and illustrating the way informed, transitional and naïve ideas intermingle.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2014). The evolving landscape related to assessment of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 621–650). New York: Routledge.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. (2009). The influence of metacognitive training on preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 2161–2184.
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.
Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: “Views on Science-Technology-Society (VOSTS)”. Science Education, 76, 477–491.
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.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, J. R. (1981). Cognitive skills and their acquisition. Hillsdale: Earlbaum.
Bartos, S. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2014). Teachers’ knowledge structures for nature of science and scientific inquiry: Conceptions and classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 1150–1184.
Bell, R. L., Mulvey, B. K., & Maeng, J. L. (2016). Outcomes of nature of science instruction along a context continuum: Preservice secondary science teachers’ conceptions and instructional intentions. International Journal of Science Education, 38, 493–520.
Clough, M. P. (2007). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students:Questions rather than tenets. The Pantaneto Forum, 25 Retrieved from www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue25/front25.htm. Accessed 18 Oct 2019.
Cooley, W. W., & Klopfer, L. E. (1961). TOUS: Test on understanding science (Form W). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
Demirdogen, B., & Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E. (2016). Closing the gap between beliefs and practice: Change of preservice chemistry teachers’ orientations during a PCK-based NOS course. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17, 818–841.
Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (Eds.). (2008). Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Dordrecht: Springer.
Erduran, S. & Dagher, Z. R. (2016). Reconceptualising the nature of science: Why does it matter? Science & Education, 25(1), 147–164.
Ford, M., & Forman, E. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1–32.
Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89–120). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside: University of California, Riverside (published in digital form at http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/). Accessed 25 Aug 2019.
Hanuscin, D. L., Akerson, V. L., & Phillipson-Mower, T. (2006). Integrating nature of science instruction into a physical science content course for preservice elementary teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants. Science Teacher Education, 90, 912–935.
Herman, B. C., & Clough, M. P. (2016). Teachers’ longitudinal NOS understanding after having completed a science teacher education program. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(1), 207–227.
Kampourakis, K. (2016). The “general aspects” conceptualization as a pragmatic and effective means to introducing students to nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 667–682.
Kaufman, J. (2006). Card sorting: An inexpensive and practical usability technique. Intercom, 11, 17–19.
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, 551–578.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29(1), 1–27.
Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335–1342.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.
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). New York: Routledge.
Lederman, N. G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225–239.
Lederman, N. G., Wade, P. D., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of science: A historical perspective. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 331–350). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
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 in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521.
McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17, 249–263.
McComas, W. (2019). Principal elements of nature of science: Informing science teaching while dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science instruction-rationales & strategies. New York: Springer.
McComas, W. F., Lee, C. K., & Sweeney, S. J. (2009). A critical review of current U.S. state science standards with respect to the inclusion of elements of the nature of science. Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CA.
Mesci, G., & Schwartz, R. (2017). Changing preservice science teachers’ views of nature of science: Why some conceptions may be more easily altered than others. Research in Science Education, 47, 329–351.
Mulvey, B. K., & Bell, R. L. (2017). Making learning last: Teachers’ long-term retention of improved nature of science conceptions and instructional rationales. International Journal of Science Education, 39, 62–85.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
O’Neill, D., & Polman, J. (2004). Why educate “little scientists”? Examining the potential of practice-based scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 234–266.
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003a). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692–720.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., Collins, S. (2003b). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.
Ozgelen, S., Hanuscin, D. L., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2013). Preservice elementary science teachers’ connections among aspects of NOS: Toward a consistent, overarching framework. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 907–927.
Peters-Burton, E. E. (2015). Outcomes of a self-regulatory curriculum model: Network analysis of middle school students’ views of nature of science. Science & Education, 24, 855–885.
Peters-Burton, E. E., & Baynard, E. (2013). Network analysis of domains of knowledge about the scientific enterprise: A comparison of scientists, middle school science teachers and 8th grade science students. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 2801–2837.
Peters-Burton, E. E., Bergeron, L. & Sondergeld, T. (2017). Re-analysis of epistemic network with NOS family resemblance approach. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association, Dublin, Ireland.
Redish, E. (2004). A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking. In E. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi summer school, course CLVI. Bologna: Italian Physical Society.
Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76, 559–580.
Smith, M. U., Lederman, N. G., Bell, R. L., McComas, W. F., & Clough, M. P. (1997). How great is the disagreement about the nature of science: A response to Alters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1101–1103.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc..
Teddlie, A., & Tashakkori, C. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc..
Weller, S. C., & Romney, A. K. (1988). Qualitative research methods: Systematic data collection. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications, Inc..
Yacoubian, H. A. (2018). Scientific literacy for democratic decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 40(3), 308–327.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Peters-Burton, E.E., Parrish, J.C. & Mulvey, B.K. Extending the Utility of the Views of Nature of Science Assessment through Epistemic Network Analysis. Sci & Educ 28, 1027–1053 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00081-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00081-x