Skip to main content

Teaching Science as a Process, Not a Set of Facts

A Case‑Study of a First‑Year Science Seminar


The widespread misperception of science as a deliverer of irrefutable facts, rather than a deliberative process, is undermining public trust in science. Science education therefore needs to better support students’ understanding of the central role that disputes play in the scientific process. Successfully incorporating scientific disputes into science education is, however, challenging. The aim of this paper is to identify course components and design features that develop undergraduate students’ abilities to write a logically coherent argument that is supported by evidence. First, we assessed student essays from a course that had gone through a major revision aimed at strengthening students’ reasoning skills. When comparing pre- and post-revision essays, we found substantial, and significant, improvements across the assessment criteria. We then elicited oral and written feedback from instructors who taught the course pre- and post-revision. We identified several changes that instructors felt most impacted students’ reasoning skills, most importantly: streamlining of learning outcomes and course content emphasizing argumentation skills; stronger scaffolding and better utilized peer review; and more detailed rubrics that specifically reference learning outcomes and course content. The study illustrates the power of iterative course revisions that incorporate findings from published research and instructors’ reflections on teaching practices as a way to strengthen student learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Data Availability

Raw data were generated at the University of British Columbia. Derived data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author Gunilla Öberg on request.


  • Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27, 1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., & Williams, J. M. (2003). The craft of research: University of Chicago press.

  • Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading: Ascd.

  • Brownell, S. E., Price, J. V., & Steinman, L. (2013). A writing-intensive course improves biology undergraduates’ perception and confidence of their abilities to read scientific literature and communicate science. Advances in Physiology Education, 37(1), 70–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., Chung, T. R., King, W. R., & Schunn, C. (2008). Peer-based computer-supported knowledge refinement: An empirical investigation. Communications of the ACM, 51(3), 83–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. J Instructional Science, 39(5), 629–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P. (2011). The story behind the science: Bringing science and scientists to life in post-secondary science education. Science & Education, 20(7), 701–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H., Evans, R., Durant, D., & Weinel, M. (2020). Experts and the Will of the People: Springer.

  • Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.

  • Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 25(1–2), 147–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A. (2015). Scaffolding learning. In Encyclopedia of Science Education (pp. 845–847): Springer.

  • de Melo-Martín, I., & Intemann, K. (2018). The fight against doubt: How to bridge the gap between scientists and the public: Oxford University Press.

  • Douglas, H. (2017). Science, values, and citizens. In (Vol. 81, pp. 83–96). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

  • Elliott, K. C. (2017). A tapestry of values: An introduction to values in science: Oxford University Press.

  • Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, K. P. (2015). Rubric use in formative assessment: A detailed behavioral rubric helps students improve their scientific writing skills. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 211–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handley, K., den Outer, B., & Price, M. (2013). Learning to mark: Exemplars, dialogue and participation in assessment communities. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(6), 888–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrington, A. J., & Cadman, D. (1991). Peer review and revising in an anthropology course: Lessons for learning. College Composition & Communication, 42(2), 184–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Hodson, D., & Wong, S. L. (2017). Going beyond the consensus view: Broadening and enriching the scope of NOS-oriented curricula. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howitt, S., & Wilson, A. (2015). Developing, expressing and contesting opinions of science: Encouraging the student voice. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(3), 541–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(5), 667–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D. (2008). Excerpt from high-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities, 14(3), 28–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, J., Millar, R., Ryder, J., & Séré, M. G. (2000). Epistemological understanding in science learning: The consistency of representations across contexts. Learning and Instruction, 10(6), 497–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L. (2017). The role of anonymity in peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(4), 645–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 525–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libarkin, J & Ording, G (2012) The utility of writing assignments in undergraduate bioscience. CBE Life Sciences Education, 11(1):39-46.

  • Liu, J., Pysarchik, D. T., & Taylor, W. W. J. A. B. (2002). Peer Review in the Classroom., 52(9), 824–829.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2014). International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching: Springer.

  • Matthews, M. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science: New York. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCain, K. (2016). The Nature of Scientific Knowledge. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (2006). The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies: Springer Science & Business Media.

  • McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Science literacy: Concepts, contexts, and consequences. Washington, DC: National academies press.

  • Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öberg, G., & Campbell, A. (2019). Navigating the divide between scientific practice and science studies to support undergraduate teaching of epistemic knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 2, 230–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimann, N., & Sadler, I. (2017). Personal understanding of assessment and the link to assessment practice: The perspectives of higher education staff. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(5), 724–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suiter, J. (2016). Post-truth politics. Political Insight, 7(3), 25–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trautmann, N. M. (2009). Designing peer review for pedagogical success. Journal of College Science Teaching, March/April, 14–19. Retrieved from

  • Van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A. (2006). Designing student peer assessment in higher education: Analysis of written and oral peer feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(2), 135–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, J. L. (2017). Science in the post-truth era. American Scientist, 105(1), 2–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, M. (2015). The quality of written peer feedback on undergraduates’ draft answers to an assignment, and the use made of the feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(2), 232–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, K., Morales, V., Nelson, M., Weaver, P., Toledo, A., & Godde, K. (2016). The benefits of peer review and a multisemester capstone writing series on inquiry and analysis skills in an undergraduate thesis. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15(4), ar51.

  • Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, A., & Howitt, S. (2016). Developing critical being in an undergraduate science course. Studies in Higher Education, 1–12.

  • Woodward, G. M. (2015). Peer review in the classroom: Is it beneficial? Literacy Learning: THe Middle Years, 23(1), 40.

    Google Scholar 

Download references


This study was funded by UBC's Development Fund with matching funding from the departments of Botany, Computer Science, Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences (EOAS), Microbiology and Immunology, Statistics, and Zoology at the university of British Columbia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gunilla Öberg.

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 1. 2014 Term Papers Writing Assessment Rubric

Writing assessment rubric.

1.1 For: Term Project Marking

figure a
figure b

Appendix 2. 2017 term paper rubric

Term paper final rubric.



Fail (0–49%)

Poor (50–54%)

Acceptable (55–67%)

Good (68–79%)

Excellent (80–100%)

I: Argument

Mark: /50

Ia: Claim

Mark: /10

The paper lacks a claim

The claim is unclear and inconsistent. It may not be a claim but, rather, a statement of fact

The paper has a claim, but it may be too broad. It may be inconsistent (e.g. the paper argues a different claim than that which is in the introduction)

The claim is clear and debatable, but would be improved by being more specific. It is consistent throughout the paper

The claim is clear, specific, and debatable. It is consistent throughout the paper


Ib: Reasons

The reasons

• Support the claim

• Are warranted, when appropriate

Mark: /15

The paper lacks reasons

There are reasons provided, but they may be difficult to identify. They do not support the claim

At least one reason supports the claim. Some need to be warranted. Two or more reasons may be conceptually indistinct. Reasons given may be contradictory

Reasons provided generally support the claim, and are conceptually distinct. They may be vague. There is a clear attempt to use warrants when necessary

Each reason is precise and clearly supports the claim. Reasons are conceptually distinct. Warrants are thoughtful and appropriate


Ic: Evidence

Is the evidence:

• Relevant

• Precise

• Accurate

• Representative

Mark: /15

The paper provides little evidence. The evidence does not support the reasons or claim

The evidence provided is difficult to identify and poorly supports the claim and reasons. It may be seldom relevant, insufficiently detailed, inaccurate, or difficult to identify

The evidence is generally relevant, but it may be insufficiently detailed, inaccurate, or not representative. It may be unclear how the evidence supports the claim and reasons

The evidence is well-selected, but includes little data from scientific papers reporting original research. It is generally relevant, precise, accurate, and representative. Evidence generally supports the claims and reasons, but may be uneven (strong for one reason and less strong for another)

The evidence is well-selected. It includes data from scientific papers reporting original research. It is consistently relevant, precise, accurate, and representative. It convincingly supports the claim and reasons


Id: Counterargument and rebuttal

Mark: /10

There is no counterargument presented

The counterargument and rebuttal are weak and difficult to identify. It may not refute the argument being made. It is not based in scientific evidence

The counterargument and rebuttal presented are based in scientific evidence, but address a minor aspect of the argument

The counterargument and rebuttal presented address a substantive aspect of the argument, but could be strengthened. The counterargument and rebuttal are supported by scientific evidence, but not from primary data

The counterargument and rebuttal are strong, detailed, and address a substantive aspect of the argument. Both the counterargument and rebuttal are supported by strong scientific evidence

II: Logical progression

Mark: /10

There is no apparent logic to the order in which ideas are presented. The argument suffers from one or more logical fallacies

The argument suffers from one or more logical fallacies

The argument has some logical inconsistencies—reasons may not be logically connected, or there may be logical fallacies evident

The argument is logically consistent. The logical order of the ideas can be improved

The argument is logically consistent and ideas are presented in a logical order that moves the argument forward

III: Written expression

Is word choice correct and precise?

Is the writing grammatically correct, concise and easy to read?

Mark: /15

The paper has enough issues with grammar, sentence, paragraph and essay structure that the meaning in some places is lost

The paper is difficult to read. Paragraphs may combine several ideas in confusing ways. Sentences have severe grammatical or word choice errors that inhibit understanding

The claim and reasons are not stated in the introduction

Some paragraphs lack topic sentences, and some may address more than one reason in the argument. Sentences have major grammatical or word choice issues. They need editing for clarity and concision to enhance readability. Ideas are generally presented in the same order as stated in the introduction

Each paragraph has a topic sentence and addresses one reason in the argument. Sentences are generally clear. They may be wordy, or have minor grammatical or word choice issues. Ideas are presented in the same order as stated in the introduction

The paper is concise and easy to read. Each paragraph has a topic sentence, and addresses one reason in the argument. Terminology is used correctly

Sentences are clear and grammatically correct. Ideas are presented in the same order as stated in the introduction

IV: References and citations

Are references complete, correct, and done consistently in APA style?

Mark: /5

The paper lacks citations and/or a list of references

Many in-text citations are missing. Major errors in citation style

Some in-text citations are missing. Some major errors in citation style. The paper may not use APA style or there may be more than one style used

In-text citations are complete. A few minor errors in APA citation style


V: Response to feedback

How well has the feedback been considered and incorporated into the final version?

Mark: /5

There is no response to feedback worksheet

Only minor, mechanical changes, despite receiving substantive feedback

Some feedback is incorporated, but some relevant feedback is not. Or, each piece of feedback uncritically incorporated, even when it wasn’t valid

A good, but not outstanding, job considering and incorporating the feedback

The paper and worksheet both indicate that the feedback was carefully considered and thoughtfully incorporated

VI: Overall quality

Mark: /15

A weak paper that does not meet the learning objectives associated with the assignment

A weak paper that demonstrates a poor conceptual understanding of the course materials, and poor reasoning and attention to detail. It is descriptive

A fair quality paper that demonstrates a grasp, but not a solid conceptual understanding, of the course materials. Reasoning and attention to detail can be improved. The paper may be descriptive rather than argumentative

A strong, well-argued paper that demonstrates good conceptual understanding of course materials, solid reasoning and good attention to detail. There may be some unevenness – some aspects may be very strong, but others, less so

A well-written, convincingly-argued and original paper that demonstrates thorough conceptual understanding of course materials, complex reasoning and careful attention to detail


Appendix 3. 2014 Term Paper Instructions

3.1 Term Project

You will develop an argumentative essay, with feedback throughout the term, on the following:

3.2 Identify a Current Controversy in Science that Interests you. State your Opinion and Present the Evidence that Justifies your Position

The term project is expected to present an evidence-based argument that is motivated by your own interests. You will receive feedback (formative assessment) throughout term to encourage reflection on the place of science in your life and future, incorporating the course themes of the nature of science and science in society.

Maximum length: Five pages double-spaced (1200–1300 words), not including references, but including an abstract limited to 150 words. You cannot do a reasonable job of this project in less than 1000 words.

Your paper must include a descriptive title. Write in the first person. Include the following headings and subheadings: Abstract, Introduction, Additional sub-headings of your choice (descriptive and related to your topic), Conclusion, and References cited.

Tips and details for working through each part of this assignment are on the term project module of connect-all sections.

Term project Revised outline, version 1, and final term project = 25%

Class 8

M 24 Sept

Start to identify topic ideas

Class 11

M 1 Oct

Paragraph on topic idea for approval due, submit in class

Class 13

F 8 Oct

Outline due, submit in class (not for marks)

Class 16

M 20 Oct

Revised outline (including references) due, submit in class (3%)

Class 23

F 7 Nov

Version 1 due, along with turn-it-in report; submit to connect (7%)

Class 25

W 12 Nov

Bring copy of version 1 to class for peer feedback

Not a class

W 3 Dec

Final term project due, submit to connect (15%)

Please be aware of the UBC plagiarism policy: and adhere strictly to it for all writing in this course. We encourage you to make an annotation of each research paper that you read throughout the term, both assigned readings for class (for practice) and as you do your research.

You will be asked to submit version1 of your term project to Turnitin in order to verify originality and to help you develop scholarly writing skills.

3.3 Term project tips

Identify a current controversy in science that interests you. State your opinion, and present the evidence that justifies your position.

The term project is expected to present an evidence-based argument that is motivated by your own interests. The structure of the term project should reflect how you developed your position. Begin with broad contextual statements that motivate the topic. In the main body, discuss different viewpoints (compare, contrast), and explain and provide support for why you are taking your position. In the conclusion, briefly summarize the previous discussion and state your position clearly again.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Adapted from Wingate, U. (2012). “Argument!” helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal for English for Academic Purposes Volume 11: 145–154

Essay writing framework.

See Fig. 6

Appendix 4. 2017 term paper instructions

4.1 Introduction

For your term paper, you will write an argumentative essay in response to this prompt:

4.2 Choose an unresolved scientific research question that interests you. State your claim and present the reasons and evidence that justify your position.

You will conduct research for your term paper using peer-reviewed scientific literature.

4.3 Guidelines

Your term paper should be 1000–1250 words long, excluding references.

Your paper must include a descriptive title, your name and student number, and the paper’s word count at the top of the page. It must also include citations and a list of references.

You should cite at least 5 peer-reviewed scientific articles. Please consult your instructor or TA if you are unsure if a source is appropriate to use.

You are expected to use warrants, and to include counterarguments and rebuttals.

Include headings and sub-headings to enhance clarity. For instance, you should include headings for your introduction, conclusion, and references. Throughout the body of the paper, you can also include headings that describe the themes, reasons, and/or arguments presented in your paper.

Please use the Term Paper outline template for guidance on how to structure your paper. Note that the introductory paragraph will describe the unresolved research question, in addition to stating the claim and reasons (as was done for Essay 1). Like in Essay 1, you should include one body paragraph for each reason that you present to support your claim, as well as a paragraph for counterarguments and rebuttals.

You must submit a Turnitin similarity report with both version 1 and the final version of your term paper.

4.4 Assessment

4.4.1 Feedback

You will receive peer and instructor feedback on version 1 of your term paper. You are expected to incorporate this feedback into the final version of your term paper. When you submit the final version of your term paper, you must include a response to feedback worksheet . Please include this as the last page of your paper, rather than as a separate file.

If you do not fully understand the feedback that you have received, be sure to speak with the person providing feedback (whether peer or instructor), so that he or she can clarify it for you.

4.4.2 Grading

Your term paper outline is worth 2.5% of your final SCIE 113 grade.

Version 1 of your term paper is worth 15% of your final SCIE 113 grade.

The final version of your term paper is worth 20% of your final SCIE 113 grade.

Your instructor will use the term paper version 1 rubric when grading version 1 of your term paper, and the term paper final version rubric when grading the final version.

4.5 Plagiarism and academic honesty

All writing must be your original work. Students are expected to be familiar with the university X policy on academic integrity and plagiarism [link disabled for review purposes], and to adhere strictly to it for all work in this course. Academic misconduct of any kind will not be tolerated; the consequences for academic misconduct will, at minimum, include a grade of zero for the assignment. Students who engage in academic misconduct may also face possible expulsion from the course and possible suspension from the university.

We expect you to use proper citations and references in your term paper. Citing your sources as you develop your outline and your draft, and keeping careful notes about each paper that you cite, will help to prevent unintentional plagiarism.

You will submit both version 1 and the final version of your paper Turnitin (Links to an external site) Links to an external site. to verify that each version is your original writing. You must submit a Turnitin similarity report with both version 1 and the final version of your term paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Öberg, G., Campbell, A., Fox, J. et al. Teaching Science as a Process, Not a Set of Facts. Sci & Educ 31, 787–817 (2022).

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: