Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Development of Nature of Science Understandings Questionnaire within Associated Approaches

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aimed to develop a Nature of Science Understandings Questionnaire within Associated Approaches (NoSQ-AA) by discussing “consensus view” of the teaching of nature of science (NoS) in light of critiques and suggestions. The second purpose of this paper was to evaluate pre-service science teachers (PSSTs)’ nature of science understandings by using the developed instrument. Firstly, we examined the NoS approaches that have been proposed as options to the consensus view. We investigated the points at which approaches intersect and diverge from each other. Then, we incorporated the components of associated approaches under Reconceptualized Family Resemblance Approach to NoS (RFN) umbrella, which is the most detailed and developed for use in science education. Secondly, we developed 17 open-ended questions related to various contemporary socioscientific issues for the instrument and a holistic rubric to evaluate the PSST’s NoS understandings. The instrument was applied to sixty-eight 3rd PSSTs. The NoSQ-AA instrument evaluated the functional (reflective-interpretive) understandings of PSSTs on contemporary socioscientific issues rather than the declarative statements about NoS. We conducted consistency analysis considering the coding (86%) and the scoring (92%) of the PSSTs’ responses. The results of the study indicated that PSSTs’ NoS understandings were high; however, they expressed the social-institutional aspect less than cognitive-epistemic aspects of science in their responses. Besides, the categorical analysis of the responses demonstrated that two more categories titled “technology” and “social effects” can be included in associated NoS approaches. The findings indicate that measuring NoS understanding using the NoSQ-AA offers a holistic view of NoS and the relationship between science, technology, and society.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data can be examined when necessary.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary science courses: Abandoning scientism, but. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the sources for our understandings about science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 353–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000a). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. S. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students’ conceptions of the nature of science.

  • Afacan, Ö. (2016). Bilimin Doğası ve Fen-Teknoloji-Toplum-Çevre (FTTÇ) İlişkisi. In Murat Demirbaş (Ed.), Fen Bilimleri Öğretiminde Bilimin Doğası, (pp.162–185). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (1988). An analysis of four ways of assessing student beliefs about STS topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(8), 607–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (1998). Many students cross cultural border to learn science: implications for teaching. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 44(4), 9–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: “Views on science-technology-society”(VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S.; Fleming, R. W.; Ryan, A. G. (1987). High-school graduates' beliefs about science-technology-society. I. methods and issues in monitoring student views. 71(2), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730710203

  • Akerson, V. L., Townsend, J. S., Donnelly, L. A., Hanson, D. L., Tira, P., & White, O. (2009). Scientific modeling for inquiring teachers network (SMIT’N): The influence on elementary teachers’ views of nature of science, inquiry, and modeling. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(1), 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (1998). Values in sciences and science education. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1083–1092). Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science & Education, 95(3), 518–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2012). Teaching the nature of science through scientific errors. Science Education, 96(5), 904–926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2009). Values in Science: an Introduction.

  • Allchin, D. (2020). From nature of science to social justice: The political power of epistemic lessons. In Nature of Science for Social Justice (pp. 23–39). Springer, Cham.

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1989). Science for all Americans. Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993, 2009). Advancement of Science. Benchmarks Online. (Online) Available: http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2013). Science for all Americans. (Online) Availble: http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa

  • Baril, C. P., Cunningham, B. M., Fordham, D. R., Gardner, R. L., & Wolcott, S. K. (1998). Critical thinking in the public accounting profession: Aptitudes and attitudes. Journal of Accounting Education, 16(3–4), 381–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 563–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J., & Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 414–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilen, K. (2015). Bilim nedir? Ne değildir? In N.Yenice (Ed.), Bilimin Doğası, Gelişimi ve Öğretimi, (pp. 1–45). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.

  • Bilgin, N. (2000). Sosyal bilimlerde içerik analizi: teknikler ve örnekler çalışmalar. Siyasal Kitabevi.

  • Boersema, D. (2020). Using real and imaginary cases to communicate aspects of nature of science. In Nature of Science in Science Instruction (pp. 283–294). Springer, Cham.

  • Brown, J. D. (2011). Likert items and scales of measurement? JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 15(1), 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buber, A., & Unal Coban, G. (2020). From modeling to STEM: A predictor activity of volcanic eruption. Science Activities, 57(3), 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2011). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Atıf İndeksi, 1–360.

  • Chen, S. (2006). Views on science and education (VOSE) questionnaire. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, L. B., Johnson, B., Turner, L. A., & Christensen, L. B. (2011). Research methods, design, and analysis.

  • Clough, M. P. (2007). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students: Questions rather than tenets. In The pantaneto forum, 25(1), 31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough (2020). Framing and teaching the nature of science as questions. Chapter 15 (pp. 271–282) in McComas (Ed.) Nature of Science in Science Instruction: Rationales and Strategies, Springer.

  • Cracraft, J., & Bybee, R. W. (Eds.). (2005). Evolutionary science and society: educating a new generation. BSCS.

  • Deniz, H., Borgerding, L., & Adibelli-Sahin, E. (2020). Arguing to learn and learning to argue with elements of nature of science. In Nature of Science in Science Instruction (pp. 399–407). Springer, Cham.

  • De Regt, H. W. (2020). Understanding, values, and the aims of science. Philosophy of Science, 87(5), 921–932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109–2139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. The National Academies Press.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5), 554–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S. (2014). Beyond nature of science: The case for reconceptualising “science” for science education. Science Education International, 25(1), 93–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing nature of science for science education. In Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education (pp. 1–18). Springer, Dordrecht.

  • Et, S. Z. (2019). The effects of socioscientific issues based learning and science writing heuristic approaches on science pre-service teachers’ understanding of the nature of science (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fırat University, Turkey)

  • Gericke, N. M., & Hagberg, M. (2007). Definition of historical models of gene function and their relation to students’ understanding of genetics. Science & Education, 16(7), 849–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Halloun, I., & Hestenes, D. (1998). Interpreting VASS dimensions and profiles for physics students. Science & Education, 7(6), 553–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halstead, J. H. (1996). Values and values education in schools. In J. M. Halstead & M. J. Taylor (Eds.), Values in education and education in values (pp. 3–14). Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanuscin, D., Khajeloo, M., & Herman, B. C. (2020). Considering the classroom assessment of nature of science. In Nature of Science in Science Instruction (pp. 409–423). Springer, Cham.

  • Harrison, G. M., Duncan Seraphin, K., Philippoff, J., Vallin, L. M., & Brandon, P. R. (2015). Comparing models of nature of science dimensionality based on the next generation science standards. International Journal of Science Education, 37(8), 1321–1342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, J. I., Daehler, K. R., Wong, N., Shinohara, M., & Miratrix, L. W. (2012). Differential effects of three professional development models on teacher knowledge and student achievement in elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 333–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2013). Teachers’ nature of science implementation practices 2–5 years after having completed an intensive science education program. Science Education, 97(2), 271–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hipkins, R., Barker, M., & Bolstad, R. (2005). Teaching the ‘nature of science’: Modest adaptations or radical reconceptions? International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000276758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D., & Wong, S. L. (2014). From the Horse’s Mouth: Why scientists’ views are crucial to nature of science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2639–2665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Höttecke, D., & Allchin, D. (2020). Re-conceptualizing nature-of-science education in the age of social media. Science Education, 104, 641–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, P. D. (1975). Science, technology and society: New goals for interdisciplinary science teaching. The Science Teacher, 42(2), 27–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Springer, Dordrecht.

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 591–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ITEA (2007). International Technology Education Association. Available: http://www.iteaconnect.org .

  • Jolly, A. (2016). STEM by design. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    Book  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 

  • Kapsala, N., & Mavrikaki, E. (2020). Storytelling as a pedagogical tool in nature of science instruction. In Nature of Science in Science Instruction (pp. 485–512). Springer, Cham.

  • Kaya, E., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualized “family resemblance approach”: A holistic perspective on nature of science in science education. Part B: Turk, sh Science Education Journal, 13(2), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10180a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, E., Erduran, S., Aksöz, B., & Akgün, S. (2018). Rconceptualised family resemblance approach to nature of science in pre-service science teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 21–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, E., Erduran, S., Akgün, S., & Aksöz, B. (2017). Nature of science in teacher education: A holistic approach. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 11(2).

  • Khishfe, R. (2013). Transfer of nature of science understandings into similar contexts: Promises and possibilities of an explicit reflective approach. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2928–2953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krell, M., Koska, J., Penning, F., & Krüger, D. (2015). Fostering pre-service teachers’ views about nature of science: Evaluation of a new STEM curriculum. Research in Science & Technological Education, 33(3), 344–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroes, P. (2012). Technical artefacts: Creations of mind and matter: A philosophy of engineering design. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1977). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. Arguing about science, 74–86.

  • Kuhn, D., & Dean, D., Jr. (2004). Metacognition: A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory into Practice, 43(4), 268–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, D. D., & Chubin, D. E. (2000). STS: Adding value to research and practice. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9(2), 135–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, H. (2004). Is science value free?: Values and scientific understanding. Psychology Press.

  • Leden, L., Hansson, L., Redfors, A., & Ideland, M. (2015). Teachers’ ways of talking about nature of science and its teaching. Science & Education, 24(9–10), 1141–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 916–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. Handbook of Research on Science Education, 2, 831–879.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74(2), 225–239.

    Article  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 in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, L. L., Chen, S., Chen, X., Kaya, O. N., Adams, A. D., Macklin, M., & Ebenezer, J. (2008). Assessing preservice elementary teachers’ views on the nature of scientific knowledge: A dual-response instrument. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology.

  • Martin, D. J. (2012). Elementary science methods: A constructivist approach. Cengage Learning.

  • Matkins, J. J., & Bell, R. L. (2007). Awakening the scientist inside: Global climate change and the nature of science in an elementary science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(2), 137–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. (1992). History, philosophy and science teaching: The present rapprochement. Science & Education, 1(1), 11–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00430208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3–26). Springer, Dordrecht.

  • McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 249–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In The nature of science in science education (pp. 41–52). Springer, Dordrecht.

  • McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In The nature of science in science education (pp. 3–39). Springer, Dordrecht.

  • Ministry of National Education (MNE). (2006). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (6.,7. ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı [Elemantary science and technology curriculum (grades 6, 7 and 8)]. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.

  • Ministry of National Education (MNE). (2013). İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı [Elemantary schools science curriculum]. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.

  • Ministry of National Education (MNE). (2018). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı [Primary and secondary schools science curriculum (grades 3 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8)]. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.

  • Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. University of Chicago Press.

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (2000). NSTA position statement: The nature of science. Retrieved from: http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx.

  • Newton, D. P. (2011). Teaching for understanding: What it is and how to do it. Routledge.

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M. (2009). Critical appraisal of physical science as a human enterprise: Dynamics of scientific progress. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M., & Maza, A. (2011). Nature of science in general chemistry textbooks. Nature of science in general chemistry textbooks, 1–37. Springer: Dordrecht,

  • Organization for the Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2009). The PISA 2003 assessment framework—mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. (Online) Available: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2003/pisa2003assessmentframeworkmathematicsreadingscienceandproblemsolvingknowledgeandskills-publications2003.htm

  • 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 Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, W., Wu, J. Y., & Erduran, S. (2020). The nature of STEM disciplines in the science education standards documents from the USA. Korea and Taiwan. Science & Education, 29(4), 899–927.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasteur, L. (1883/1922). Oeuvres complètes réunies par M. Pasteur Vallery-Radot, Dissymétrie moléculaire (Tome 1). Paris: Masson et Cie Editeurs.

  • Perkins, D., & Blythe, T. (1994). Putting understanding up front. Educational leadership, 51, 4–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitt, J. C. (1995). Discovery, telescopes, and progress. In J. C. Pitt (Ed.), New directions in the philosophy of technology (pp. 1–16). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pleasants, J., Clough, M. P., Olson, J. K., & Miller, G. (2019). Fundamental issues regarding the nature of technology. Science & Education, 28(3), 561–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prachagool, V., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2019). Investigating understanding the nature of science. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 8(4), 719–725. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v8i4.20282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, C. M., Reid, J. W., & Gardner, G. E. (2020). S+ T+ M= E as a convergent model for the nature of STEM. Science Education, 29, 881–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, J. (1993). The science education reform movement: Implications for social responsibility. Science Education, 77(2), 235–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding SSI: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45, 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science & Education, 89(4), 634–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sassower, R. (1997). Technoscientific angst: Ethics and responsibility. Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (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 

  • Slater, S. C., & Boulet, J. R. (2001). Predicting holistic ratings of written performance assessments from analytic scoring. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 6(2), 103–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, P., Newton, L., & McCarthy, S. (2012). Developing a science teacher education course that supports student teachers’ thinking and teaching about the nature of science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 30(1), 29–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefanidou, C., & Skordoulis, C. (2017). Primary student teachers’ understanding of basic ideas of nature of science: Laws, theories and models. Journal of Studies in Education, 7(1), 127–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talbot, A. L. (2010). Student conceptions of the nature of science (Unpublished master’s thesis, Arizona State University, USA). Retrieved from https://repository.asu.edu/attachments/56310/content/Talbot_asu_0010N_10261.pdf

  • Ünal Çoban, G. (2015). Bilimin Doğası Gelişimi ve Değişen Yüzü. In Nilgün Yenice (Ed.), Bilimin Doğası Gelişimi ve Öğretimi içinde (p.95–127). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık"

  • Vázquez–Alonso, Á., Manassero–Mas, M. A., García–Carmona, A., & Bennàssar-Roig, A. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs on science-technology-society (STS) and nature of science (NOS): Strengths, weaknesses, and teaching practice. In Topics and trends in current science education (pp. 117–135). Springer, Dordrecht.

  • Walker, K., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1387–1410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, L. B., Mulvey, B. K., Maeng, J. L., Librea-Carden, M. R., & Bell, R. L. (2019). Teaching the teacher: Exploring STEM graduate students’ nature of science conceptions in a teaching methods course. International Journal of Science Education, 41(14), 1905–1925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science & Education, 93(1), 109–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2010). More from the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about science as a social practice. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1431–1463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S. S., Firestone, J. B., Ronduen, L. G., & Bang, E. (2016). Middle school science and mathematics teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A one-year study on the effects of explicit and reflective online instruction. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 2(2), 469–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yager, R. E. (1996). Meaning of STS for science teachers. Science/technology/Society: as reform in science education, 16–24.

  • 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, 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis. Theory, research, and practice. In NG Lederman & SK Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, 2, 697–726.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science Education, Gazi Education Faculty, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

    Ayse Buber

  2. Science Education, Buca Faculty of Education, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey

    Gul Unal Coban

Authors
  1. Ayse Buber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gul Unal Coban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ayse Buber.

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.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Nature of Science Understandings Questionnaire based on Associated Approaches.

figure a
figure b
figure c

Appendix 2

Table 8

Table 8 Comparison of associated approaches for nature of science based on RFN structure
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Buber, A., Coban, G.U. The Development of Nature of Science Understandings Questionnaire within Associated Approaches. Sci & Educ 32, 1075–1137 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00357-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00357-9

Search

Navigation