Science & Education

, Volume 7, Issue 6, pp 595–615 | Cite as

Assessing the Nature of Science: What is the Nature of Our Assessments?

  • Norman G. Lederman
  • Philip D. Wade
  • Randy L. Bell
Article

Abstract

This paper discusses the nature of the instruments used to assess students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science during the last four decades. Two salient points emerge from critically reviewing the various research emphases and associated assessment instruments specifically related to the nature of science. The first is to question the validity of much of the research presented on the grounds that (a) assessment instruments are interpreted in a biased manner, and (b) some assessment instruments appear to be poorly constructed. Although such comments are well founded, it is important to note that the research conclusions were unusually uniform regardless of the particular instrument used in an investigation. The second point is a more critical concern about the “traditional” paper and pencil approach to the assessment of an individual's understanding of the nature of science. Although not a new insight, discrepancies between the interpretation of a written response to a “traditional” instrument (e.g., multiple choice assessment) and the intent of the respondent have been well documented. It is suggested that the current educational research shift toward more qualitative, open-ended approaches to assessment of individuals' understanding (of any concept) be applied to the assessment of individuals' nature of science conceptions.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Aikenhead, G.: 1972, The measurement of knowledge about science and scientists: An investigation into the development of instruments for formative evaluation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard University.Google Scholar
  2. Aikenhead, G.: 1973, ‘The Measurement of High School Students' Knowledge About Science and Scientists’, Science Education, 57(4), 539–549.Google Scholar
  3. Aikenhead, G.: 1979, ‘Science: A Way of Knowing’, Science Education, 46(6), 23–25.Google Scholar
  4. Aikenhead, G.: 1987, ‘High School Graduates' Beliefs About Science-Technology-Society: Characteristics and Limitations of Science Knowledge’, Science Education, 71(4), 459–487.Google Scholar
  5. Aikenhead, G., Fleming, R.W. & Ryan, A.G.: 1987, ‘High School Graduates' Beliefs About Science-Technology-Society: Methods and Issues in Monitoring Student Views’, Science Education, 71(2), 145–161.Google Scholar
  6. Aikenhead, G. & Ryan, A.G.: 1992, ‘The Development of a New Instrument: “Views on Science-Technology-Society” (VOSTS)’, Science Education, 76(5), 477–491.Google Scholar
  7. Allen, H. Jr.: 1959, Attitudes of certain high school seniors toward science and scientific careers’, Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. Alters, B.J.: 1996, Whose nature of science? Paper presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.Google Scholar
  9. American Association for the Advancement of Science: 1989, Science for All Americans: A Project 2061 Report. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. American Association for the Advancement of Science: 1993, Benchmarks for Science Literacy: A Project 2061 Report. Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. (Published simultaneously by Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
  11. Bates, G.: 1974, A search for subscales in the Science Process Inventory. Paper presented at the 47th Annual Meeting for the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.Google Scholar
  12. Bell, R.L. & Lederman, N.G.: 1996, [COST results for high school students enrolled in a summer science apprenticeship program and undergraduate students enrolled in a geology course for nonmajors]. Unpublished raw data.Google Scholar
  13. Billeh, V.Y. & Hasan, O.: 1975, ‘Factors Affecting Teachers' Gain in Understanding the Nature of Science’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12(3), 209–219.Google Scholar
  14. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS): 1962, Processes of science test. New York: the Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  15. Brickhouse, N. W.: 1990. ‘Teachers' Beliefs About the Nature of Science and Their Relationship to Classroom Practice’, Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53–62.Google Scholar
  16. Briscoe, C.: 1991, ‘The Dynamic Interactions Among Beliefs, Role Metaphors and Teaching Practices: A Study of Teacher Change’, Science Education, 75(2), 185–199.Google Scholar
  17. Bronowski, J.: 1956, Science and human values. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  18. Central Association of Science and Mathematics Teachers: 1907, ‘A Consideration of the Principles that Should Determine the Courses in Biology in the Secondary Schools’, Science and Mathematics, 7, 241–247.Google Scholar
  19. Conant, J.B.: 1951, Science and common sense. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Cooley, W. & Klopfer, L.: 1961, Test on understanding science, Form W. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  21. Cooley, W. & Klopfer, L.: 1963, ‘The Evaluation of Specific Education Innovations’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1,(1), 73–80.Google Scholar
  22. Cotham, J.: 1979, Development, validation, and application of the conceptions of scientific theories test. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  23. Cotham, J. & Smith, E.: 1981, ‘Development and Validation of the Conceptions of Scientific Theories Test’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(5), 387–396.Google Scholar
  24. Duschl, R.: 1990, Restructuring science education: the importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  25. Duschl, R. A. & Wright, E.: 1989, ‘A Case Study of High School Teachers' Decision Making Models for Planning and Teaching Science’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(6), 467–501.Google Scholar
  26. Fraser, B.J.: 1978, ‘Development of a Test of Science-Related Attitudes’, Science Education, 62(4), 509–515.Google Scholar
  27. Fraser, B.J.: 1980, ‘Development and Validation of a Test of Inquiry Skills’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(1), 7–16.Google Scholar
  28. Gallagher, J.J.: 1991, ‘Prospective and Practicing Secondary School Science Teachers' Knowledge and Beliefs About the Philosophy of Science’, Science Education, 75(1), 121–133.Google Scholar
  29. Hillis, S.R.: 1975, ‘The Development of an Instrument to Determine Student Views of the Tentativeness of Science’. In Research and Curriculum Development in Science Education: Science Teacher Behavior and Student Affective and Cognitive Learning (Vol. 3). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hodson, D.H.: 1993, ‘Philosophic Stance of Secondary School Science Teachers, Curriculum Experiences, and Children's Understanding of Science: Some Preliminary Findings’, Interchange, 24, 41–52.Google Scholar
  31. Hukens, A.A.: 1963, A factorial investigation of measures of achievement of objectives in science teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton.Google Scholar
  32. Hungerford, H. & Walding, H.: 1974, The modification of elementary methods students' concepts concerning science and scientists. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  33. Hurd, P.D.: 1960, Biological education in American secondary schools, 1890–1960. Washington, DC: AIBS.Google Scholar
  34. Kimball, M.E.: 1967–1968, ‘Understanding the Nature of Science: A Comparison of Scientists and Science Teachers’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5(2), 110–120.Google Scholar
  35. Korth, W.: 1969, Test every senior project: Understanding the social aspects of science. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.Google Scholar
  36. Kuhn, T.J.: 1970, The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lantz, O. & Kass, H. 1987, ‘Chemistry Teachers' Functional Paradigms’, Science Education, 71(1), 117–134.Google Scholar
  38. Lederman, N.G.: 1992, ‘Students' and Teachers' Conceptions of the Nature of Science: A Review of the Research’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 29(4), 331–359.Google Scholar
  39. Lederman, N.G.: 1995, The influence of teachers' conceptions of science on classroom practice: A story of five teachers. A paper presented at the 3rd International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  40. Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Bell, R.L.: 1997. Knowing and doing: The flight of the nature of science from the classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  41. Lederman, N. & O'Malley, M.: 1990, ‘Students' Perception of Tentativeness in Science: Development, Use, and Sources of Change’, Science Education. 74(2), 225–239.Google Scholar
  42. Lederman, N. & Zeidler, D.: 1987, ‘Science Teachers' Conceptions of the Nature of Science: Do They Really Influence Teacher Behavior?’, Science Education, 71(5), 721–734.Google Scholar
  43. Lucas, A.M.: 1975, ‘Hidden Assumptions in Measures of “Knowledge About Science and Scientists”’, Science Education. 59(4), 481–485.Google Scholar
  44. Meichtry, Y.J.: 1992, ‘Influencing Student Understanding of the Nature of Science: Data from a Case of Curriculum Development’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 29(4), 389–407.Google Scholar
  45. Mackay, L.D.: 1971, ‘Development of Understanding About the Nature of Science’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8(1), 57–66.Google Scholar
  46. Martin, M.: 1972, Concepts of science education. Glenview, Ill.: Scott Foresman & Co.Google Scholar
  47. Matthews, M.R.: 1994. Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Moore, R. & Sutman, F.: 1970, ‘The Development, Field Test and Validation of an Inventory of Scientific Attitudes’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7(2), 85–94.Google Scholar
  49. Munby, H.: 1983, An investigation into the measurement of attitudes in science education. Columbus, OH: SMEAC Information Reference Center.Google Scholar
  50. National Research Council: 1996, National science education standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  51. National Science Teachers Association: 1982. Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980's. Washington DC: Author.Google Scholar
  52. National Society for Study of Education: 1960, Rethinking science education (59th Year-book, Part I). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  53. Nott, M. & Wellington, J.: 1995 ‘Probing Teachers' Views of the Nature of Science: How Should We Do It and Where Should We Be Looking?’, Proceedings of the Third International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference, pp. 864–872.Google Scholar
  54. Ogunniyi, M.B.: 1982, ‘An Analysis of Prospective Science Teachers' Understanding of the Nature of Science’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(1), 25–32.Google Scholar
  55. Robinson, J.: 1969, ‘Philosophy of Science: Implications for Teacher Education’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6(1), 99–104.Google Scholar
  56. Rubba, P. 1976, Nature of scientific knowledge scale. School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
  57. Rubba, P.A.: 1977, The development, field testing, and validation of an instrument to assess secondary school students' understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  58. Rubba, P. & Anderson, H.: 1978, ‘Development of an Instrument to Assess Secondary School Students' Understanding of the Nature of Scientific Knowledge’, Science Education, 62(4), 449–458.Google Scholar
  59. Sholwalter, V.M.: 1974, ‘What is Unified Science Education? Program Objectives and Scientific Literacy’, Prism II, 2, 3–4.Google Scholar
  60. Schwirian, P.: 1968, ‘On Measuring Attitudes Toward Science’, Science Education, 52(2), 172–179.Google Scholar
  61. Scientific Literacy Research Group: 1967, Wisconsin inventory of science processes. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  62. Smith, E.L. & Anderson, C.W.: 1984, ‘Plants as Producers: A Case Study of Elementary Science Teaching’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(7), 685–698.Google Scholar
  63. Stice, G. 1958, Facts about science test. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  64. Swan, M.D.: 1966, ‘Science Achievement as it Relates to Science Curricula and Programs at the Sixth Grade Level in Montana Public Schools’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4(2), 102–123.Google Scholar
  65. Wade, P.D. & Lederman, N.: 1995, ‘College Students' Conceptions of Science and Science Content’, Proceedings of the Third International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference, pp. 1271–1276.Google Scholar
  66. Wheeler, S.: 1968, Critique and revision of an evaluation instrument to measure students' understanding of science and scientists. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  67. Welch, W.: 1966, Science process inventory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Welch, W.: 1969, ‘Curriculum Evaluation’, Review of Educational Research, 39, 429–443.Google Scholar
  69. Welch, W.: 1981, ‘Inquiry in School Science’, In N.C. Harms & R.E. Yager (Eds.), What research says to the science teacher (Vol. 3). Washington DC: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  70. Wilson, L.: 1954, ‘A Study of Opinions Related to the Nature of Science and its Purpose in Society’, Science Education, 38(2), 159–164.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norman G. Lederman
    • 1
  • Philip D. Wade
    • 1
  • Randy L. Bell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Science and Mathematics EducationOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations