Strategies for Learning Nature of Science Knowledge: A Perspective from Educational Psychology

  • Erin E. Peters-BurtonEmail author
Part of the Science: Philosophy, History and Education book series (SPHE)


Learning about the nature of science is a crucial part of being a scientifically literate citizen in the modern age. This paper examines parallels between nature of science instruction and the processes explained by self-regulated learning theory, with a particular emphasis on the extension of effective strategies for learners which can be enhanced by the use of self-regulated learning cycles in classrooms. Explicit and reflective approaches to teaching the nature of science are examined and analyzed in terms of self-regulated learning theory, demonstrating learning processes that are addressed and those that are ignored by current explicit and reflective approaches. Results from emerging research on the use of self-regulated learning to teach nature of science knowledge, inquiry, and science practices are discussed.


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abd-El-Khalick, F. S., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development program. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 44, 653–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Akerson, V. L., & Volrich, M. L. (2006). Teaching nature of science explicitly in a first grade internship setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 377–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Akindehin, F. (1988). Effect of an instructional package on preservice science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and acquisition of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 72, 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95, 518–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327–348). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivational processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Billeh, V. Y., & Hasan, O. E. (1975). Factors influencing teachers’ gain in understanding the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12, 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cleary, T. J. (2009). School-based motivation and self-regulation assessments: An examination of school psychologist beliefs and practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 25, 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cleary, T. J. (2011). Shifting towards self-regulation microanalytic assessment: Historical overview, essential features, and implications for research and practice. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 329–345). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Cleary, T. J., & Labuhn, A. S. (2013). Application of cyclical self-regulation interventions in science-based contexts. In H. Bembenutty, T. J. Cleary, & A. Kitasantas (Eds.), Applications of self-regulated learning across diverse disciplines: A tribute to Barry J. Zimmerman (pp. 89–124). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Cleary, T. J., & Platten, P. (2013). Examining the correspondence between self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A case study analysis [Special issue]. Educational Research International. Google Scholar
  22. Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Teachers’ perceived usefulness of strategy microanalyic assessment information. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cleary, T. J., Callan, G., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). Assessing self-regulation as a cyclical, context-specific phenomenon: Overview and analysis of SRL microanalytic protocols [Special issue]. Education Research International.Google Scholar
  24. Clough, M.P. (2007). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students: Questions rather than tenets, The Pantaneto forum, issue 25, January, Republished (2008) in California Journal of Science Education, 8(2), 31–40.
  25. Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education. (2006). Report on the teacher needs survey. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, Center for Psychology in Schools and Education.Google Scholar
  26. Corno, L. (1993). The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions of volition and educational research. Educational Researcher, 22(2), 14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Dunbar, K. (1993). Concept discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 17, 397–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2012, Online first). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education. DOI  10.1007/s11191-012-9539-4
  31. Earley, P. C., Northcraft, G. B., Lee, C., & Lituchy, T. R. (1990). Impact of process and outcome feedback on the relation of goal setting to task performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Elliot, E., & Dweck, C. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational application (pp. 127–153). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivational influences on cognition: Task involvement, ego involvement, and depth of processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Graham, S., & Williams, C. (2009). An attributional approach to motivation in school. In K. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 11–34). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Grigal, M., Neubart, D. A., Moon, S. M., & Graham, S. (2003). Self-determination for students with disabilities: Views of parents and teachers. Exceptional Children, 70, 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hanuscin, D., Akerson, V., & 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 Education, 90, 912–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Henderson, R. W. (1986). Self-regulated learning: Implications for the design of instructional media. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 405–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hodson, D. (1993). Philosophic stance of secondary school science teachers, curriculum experiences, and children’s understanding of science: Some preliminary findings. Interchange, 24(1&2), 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hodson, D. (2014). Nature of science in the science curriculum: Origin, development and shifting emphases. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 911–970). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  44. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  45. Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students’ knowledge about the nature of science. Science Education, 84, 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions in nature of science research. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy, and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Jungwirth, E. (1970). An evaluation of the attained development of the intellectual skills needed for understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry by BSCS pupils in Israel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kalman, C. S. (2009). The need to emphasize epistemology in teaching and research. Science & Education, 18, 325–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kalman, C. S., & Aulls, M. (2003). Can an analysis of the contrast between pre-Galilean and Newtonian theoretical frameworks help students develop a scientific mindset? Science & Education, 12, 761–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Khishfe, R. (2008). The development of seventh graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 45, 470–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Khishfe, R. (2012). Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 489–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. King, P., & Kitchener, K. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  54. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28, 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lawson, A. E. (1982). The nature of advanced reasoning and science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 743–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Leach, J. T., Hind, A. J., & Ryder, J. (2003). Designing and evaluating short teaching interventions about the epistemology of science in high school classrooms. Science Education, 87(6), 831–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., & Lederman, J. (2014). The development, use, and interpretation of nature of science assessments. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 971–997). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  59. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  60. 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). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Matthews, M. (2014). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2/3), 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  64. McComas, W. F., Lee, C. K., & Sweeney, S. (2009). The comprehensiveness and completeness of nature of science content in the U.S. state science standards. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching International Conference, Garden Grove, CA.Google Scholar
  65. McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 1137–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Meichtry, Y. J. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the nature of science: Data from a case curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Monk, M., & Osbourne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: A model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81, 405–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Morrison, J. A., Raab, F., & Ingram, D. (2009). Factors influencing elementary and secondary teachers’ views on the nature of science. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 46, 384–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Muis, K. R. (2004). Personal epistemology and mathematics: A critical review and synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 317–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ogunnivi, M. B. (1983). Relative effects of a history/philosophy of science course on student teachers’ performance on two models of science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1, 193–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about science” should be taught in school? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Peters, E. E. (2012). Developing content knowledge in students through explicit teaching of the nature of science: Influences of goal setting and self-monitoring. Science and Education, 21(6), 881–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Peters-Burton, E. E. (2012). Using metacognition to develop understanding of the role of evidence in science. Science Scope, 35(9), 14–19.Google Scholar
  74. Peters-Burton, E.E. (2013, April). Microanalysis of self-regulatory processes of elementary teachers learning to teach earth science through inquiry. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American education research association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  75. Peters-Burton, E. E. (2015a, January). Incorporation of scientific argumentation into instruction: Results from a professional development for high school teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
  76. Peters-Burton, E. E. (2015b). Outcomes of a self-regulatory curriculum model: Network analysis of middle school students’ views of nature of science. Science & Education, 24, 855–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Peters, E. E., & Kitsantas, A. (2010a). Self-regulation of student epistemic thinking in science: The role of metacognitive prompts. Educational Psychology, 30(1), 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Peters, E. E., & Kitsantas, A. (2010b). The effect of nature of science metacognitive prompts on science students’ content and nature of science knowledge, metacognition, and self-regulatory efficacy. School Science and Mathematics, 110, 382–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2009). Sickle cell disease and malaria: An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 18, 561–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Scientists in the classroom: The cold war reconstruction of American science education. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 369–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Scharmann, L. C., Smith, M. U., James, M. C., & Jensen, M. (2005). Explicit reflective nature of science instruction: Evolution, intelligent design, and umbrellaology. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students’ understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 131–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Schunk, D. H. (1982). Verbal self-regulation as a facilitator of children’s achievement and self-efficacy. Human Learning, 1, 265–277.Google Scholar
  87. 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, 610–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sinatra, G. M., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2011). Intentional conceptual change: The self-regulation of science. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 203–216). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  90. Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (2008). A multi-year program developing an explicit reflective pedagogy for teaching pre-service teachers the nature of science by ostention. Science & Education, 17, 219–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tamir, P. (1972). Understanding the process of science by students exposed to different science curricula in Israel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 9, 239–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Trent, J. (1965). The attainment of the concept “understanding science” using contrasting physics courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3, 224–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Tsai, C. C. (2000). Relationships between student scientific epistemological beliefs and perceptions of constructivist learning environments. Educational Research, 42, 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. A. (2000). National survey of teachers’ promotion of self-determination and student-directed learning. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 58–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93, 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 407–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social-cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting from process to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Zimmerman, B. J., & Kinsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 660–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Perceptions of efficacy and strategy use in the self-regulation of learning. In D. H. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom: Causes and consequences (pp. 185–207). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of EducationGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations