Beyond Understanding: Process Skills as a Context for Nature of Science Instruction

  • Randy L. Bell
  • Bridget K. Mulvey
  • Jennifer L. Maeng
Chapter

Abstract

Effective nature of science (NOS) instruction is explicit and should be situated in a meaningful context that encourages students to reflect on the scientific enterprise. This approach to NOS instruction aligns with situated learning theory, which espouses that learning cannot be disconnected from the content to which it applies. The process skills-based approach is emerging as an effective way to contextualize NOS instruction. This approach explicitly links familiar inquiry skills such as observation, inference, and experimental design to the more abstract and esoteric NOS concepts (Bell, 2008). Preliminary research suggests that the process skills-based approach is effective in improving learners’ views of NOS and teachers’ abilities to teach NOS. Preservice teachers have shown substantial improvements in their NOS understanding (Matkins & Bell, 2007) and evidence supports that these teachers go on to use the approach to teach their own students about NOS (Bell, Binns, Schnittka, & Toti, 2006). In addition, the process skills-based approach has been linked to increased student achievement when science teachers implemented the approach in their classrooms (Binns, Schnittka, Toti, & Bell, 2007).

Keywords

Nature of science Teaching Explicit Context Process skills 

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. S. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary science courses: Abandoning scientism, but… . Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12, 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F. S., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88, 785–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abd-El-Khalick, F. S., 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
  4. Abd-El-Khalick, F. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2000a). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1057–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Abd-El-Khalick, F. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2000b). 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
  6. Abell, S. K., & Smith, D. C. (1994). What is science? Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. S. (2003). Teaching elements of the nature of science: A yearlong case study of a fourth-grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 1025–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F. S., & 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
  9. Akerson, V. L., & Donnelly, L. (2008). Relationships among learner characteristics and preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20, 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Bell, R. L. (2008). Teaching the nature of science through process skills. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Bell, R. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F. S., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). Implicit versus explicit nature of science instruction: An explicit response to Palmquist and Finley. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1057–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bell, R. L., Binns, I., Schnittka, C., & Toti, D. (2006, January). Preservice science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Impacts on classroom practice. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
  15. Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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, 37, 563–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bell, R., Maeng, J. L., Peters, E. E., & Sterling, D. R. (2010, May). Scientific inquiry and the nature of science task force report. Richmond, VA: Virginia Mathematics and Science Coalition.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Binns, I. C., Schnittka, C., Toti, D., & Bell, R. L. (2007, April). Preservice science teachers’ nature of science instruction and its impact on pupil learning. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  20. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science, Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Perspective and practicing secondary school science teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science, Science Education, 75, 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanuscin, D., Akerson, V. L., & Phillipson-Mower, T. (2006). Integrating nature of science instruction into a physical science content course for preservice elementary teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants. Science Education, 90, 912–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karplus, R., & Thier, H. (1967). A new look at elementary school science. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co.Google Scholar
  25. Khishfe, R. (2008). The development of seventh graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 45, 470–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. S. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 39, 551–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 395–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lawson, A. E. (1982). The nature of advanced reasoning and science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 743–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lederman, N. G. (1998). The state of science education: Subject matter without content. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3, 1–12.Google Scholar
  32. 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, 36, 916–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F. S., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire (VNOS): Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lederman, N. G., Schwartz, R. S., Abd-El-Khalick, F. S., & Bell, R. L. (2001). Pre-service teachers’ understanding and teaching of the nature of science: An intervention study. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 1, 135–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lederman, N. G., & Zeidler, D. L. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really influence teacher behavior? Science Education, 71, 721–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lin, H. S., & Chen, C. C. (2002). Promoting preservice teachers’ understanding about the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 773–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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, 137–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science as expressed in international science education standards documents: A qualitative consensus analysis. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  40. Mellado, V. (1997). Preservice teachers’ classroom practice and their conceptions of the nature of science. Science & Education, 6, 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. National Academy of Sciences. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  42. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  43. Olsen, S., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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 Teacher Education, 88, 610–645.Google Scholar
  47. Sneider, C. (1985). Oobleck. Great explorations in mathematics and science. Berkley: Lawrence Hall of Science.Google Scholar
  48. Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scot, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Spector, B., & Lederman, N. G. (1990). Science and technology as human enterprises. Dubuque, IA: Kendal-Hunt.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Randy L. Bell
    • 1
  • Bridget K. Mulvey
    • 1
  • Jennifer L. Maeng
    • 1
  1. 1.University of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations