Skip to main content
Book cover

International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching pp 971–997Cite as

The Development, Use, and Interpretation of Nature of Science Assessments

Abstract

Efforts to assess students' and teachers' understandings of nature of science have extended for over 50 years. During this time, numerous instruments have been developed that span the full range of assessments from the traditional to open-ended assessments with interviews. As one might expect, the development, use, and interpretation of these assessments have paralleled the scholarship on students’ and teachers’ understandings of nature of science. Consequently, such assessments have evidenced the same challenges and obstacles seen in the general research literature. This chapter will provide a rationale for the importance of teaching, and assessing, nature of science as well as a discussion of the construct. A comprehensive review and a critical analysis of the various assessments are also provided. Finally, an in-depth discussion of the contemporary issues regarding nature of science and its assessment is provided along with cautions regarding the future direction of nature of science assessment.

Keywords

  • Scientific Knowledge
  • Scientific Theory
  • Critical Incident
  • Science Attitude
  • Next Generation Science Standard

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_29
  • Chapter length: 27 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   789.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-94-007-7654-8
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   999.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   999.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, for instance, Abd-El-Khalick (2005), Akerson et al. (2000), Bell and Lederman (2003), Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002), Lederman and Neiss (1997), and Schwartz and Lederman (2002).

  2. 2.

    As evidenced by AAAS (1990, 1993), Center of Unified Science Education (1974), Central Association for Science and Mathematics Teachers (1907), Klopfer and Watson (1957), and NSTA (1982).

  3. 3.

    See Aikenhead (1973), Hukins (1963), Welch (1969), and Wheeler (1968), among others.

  4. 4.

    As evidenced in Allchin (2012), Duschl and Grandy (2012), Irzik and Nola (2011), and Wong and Hodson (2009, 2010), among others.

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27 (1), 15–42.

    CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., Belarmino, J., & Summers, R. (2012). Development and validation of a rubric to score the views of nature of science (VNOS) questionnaire. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Indianapolis, IN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1095.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. (1973). The measurement of high school students’ knowledge about science and scientists. Science Education, 57(4), 539–549.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G., Ryan, A.G., & Fleming, R.W. (1987). High school graduates beliefs about science-technology-society: Methods and issues in monitoring student views. Science Education, 71, 145–161.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V.L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Influence of a reflective activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (4), 295–317.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2012). Toward clarity on Whole Science and KNOWS. Science Education, 96(4), 693–700.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, H. Jr. (1959). Attitudes of certain high school seniors toward science and scientific careers. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alters, B.J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39–55.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R.L., Lederman, N.G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making in science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352–377.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Billeh, V. Y., & Hasan, O. E. (1975). Factors influencing teachers’ gain in understanding the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12(3), 209–219.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Biological Sciences Curriculum Study [BSCS]. (1962). Processes of science test. New York: The Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronowski, J. (1956). Science and Human Values. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center of Unified Science Education. (1974). The dimensions of scientific literacy. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Central Association of Science and Mathematics Teachers (1907). A consideration of the principles that should determine the courses in biology in the secondary schools. School Science and Mathematics, 7, 241–247.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, A. F. (1982). What is this thing called science? (2nd ed.). Queensland, Australia: University of Queensland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conant, J.B. (1951). On understanding science. New York: New American Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, W. W., & Klopfer, L. E. (1961). Test on understanding science. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young peoples’ images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2012). Two Views About Explicitly Teaching Nature of Science. Science & Education, DOI 10.1007/s11191-012-9539-4

    Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, D. (1975). Against method. London: Verso Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J. (1978). Development of a test of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 62, 509–515.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J. (1980). Development and validation of a test of enquiry skills, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17, 7–16.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J., & Eldridge, N. (1977). Punctuated equilibria: The tempo and model of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology, 3, 115–151

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hrdy, S. B. (1986). Empathy, polyandry, and the myth of the coy female. In R. Bleier (Ed.), Feminist approaches to science (pp. 119–146). Perganon Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hukins, A. (1963). A factorial investigation of measures of achievement of objectives in science teaching. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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(7), 551–578.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, M. E. (1967–68). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 110–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klopfer, L. E., & Watson, F. G. (1957). Historical materials and high school science teaching. The Science Teacher, 24(6), 264–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N.G. (1998). The state of science education: Subject matter without context. Electronic Journal of Science Education [On-Line], 3(2), December. Available: http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/ejse.html

  • Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In Abell, S.K. and N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N., Abd-el-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R.S. (2002). Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire: Towards valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N.G., & Niess, M.L. (1997). The nature of science: Naturally? School Science and Mathematics, 97(1), 1–2.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Wade, P. D., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of science: A historical perspective. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science and science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 331–350). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang, L.L., Chen, S., Chen, X., Kaya, O.N., Adams, A.D., Macklin, M., & Ebenezer, J. (2006). Student understanding of science and scientific inquiry: revision and further validation of an assessment instrument. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovejoy, C.O. (1981). The origin of man. Science, 211, 341–350.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, M., & Métraux, R. (1957). Image of the Scientist among High-School Students. Science, 126, 384–390.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 389–407.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R., & Sutman, F. (1970). The development, field test and validation of an inventory of scientific attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7, 85–94.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council [NRC]. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Teachers Association [NSTA]. (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980s. (An NSTA position statement). Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 864–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1988). The open universe: An argument for indeterminism. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D.A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubba, P. (1976). Nature of scientific knowledge scale. School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J.L. (2003). Portraying epistemology: School science in historical context. Science Education, 87 (1), 64–79.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(5), 634–656.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R.S., & Lederman, N.G. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (3), 205–236.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schwirian, P. M. (1968). On measuring attitudes toward science. Science Education, 52, 172–179.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Scientific Literacy Research Center. (1967). Wisconsin inventory of science processes. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamos, M.H. (1984). Exposure to science vs. scientific literacy. Journal of College Science Teaching, 13(5), 333–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Showalter, V. (1974). What is unified science education? Program objectives and scientific literacy, Prism II, 2(3–4), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stice, G. (1958). Facts about science test. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M.U., Lederman, N.G., Bell, R.L., McComas, W.F., & Clough, M.P. (1997). How great is the disagreement about the nature of science: A response to Alters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1101–1103.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83, 493–509.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 102–123.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, W. W. (1967). Science process inventory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch, W.W. (1969). Curriculum evaluation. Review of Educational Research, 39(4), 429–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch, W. W., & Pella, M. O. (1967–68). The development of an instrument for inventorying knowledge of the processes of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5(1), 64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, S. (1968). Critique and revision of an evaluation instrument to measure students’ understanding of science and scientists. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, L. (1954). A study of opinions related to the nature of science and its purpose in society. Science Education, 38(2), 159–164.

    CrossRef  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, 109–130.

    CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, USA

    Norman G. Lederman & Judith S. Lederman

  2. Womack Educational Leadership Department, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, USA

    Stephen A. Bartos

Authors
  1. Norman G. Lederman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen A. Bartos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Judith S. Lederman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Norman G. Lederman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Michael R. Matthews

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lederman, N.G., Bartos, S.A., Lederman, J.S. (2014). The Development, Use, and Interpretation of Nature of Science Assessments. In: Matthews, M. (eds) International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_29

Download citation