Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understandings of Nature of Science and Multiple Perspective Evaluation of Science News by Non-science Majors

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Understandings of nature of science (NOS) are a core component of scientific literacy, and a scientifically literate populace is expected to be able to critically evaluate science in the media. While evidence has remained inconclusive on whether better NOS understandings will lead to critical evaluation of science in the media, this study aimed at examining the correlation therein. Thirty-eight non-science majors, enrolled in a science course for non-specialists held in a local community college, evaluated three health news articles by rating the extent to which they agreed with the reported claims and providing as many justifications as possible. The majority of the participants were able to evaluate and justify their viewpoint from multiple perspectives. Students’ evaluation was compared with their NOS conceptions, including the social and cultural embedded NOS, the tentative NOS, the peer review process and the community of practice. Results indicated that participants’ understanding of the tentative NOS was significantly correlated with multiple perspective evaluation of science news reports of socioscientific nature (r = 0.434, p < 0.05). This moderate correlation suggested the association between understanding of the tentative NOS and multiple perspective evaluation of science in the media of socioscientific nature. However, the null result for other target NOS aspects in this study suggested a lack of evidence to assume that understanding the social dimensions of science would have significant influence on the evaluation of science in the media. Future research on identifying the reasons for why and why not NOS understandings are applied in the evaluation will move this field forward.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ACARA. (2009). Shape of the Australian curriculum: Science. Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/australian_curriculum_-_science.pdf. Accessed September 21, 2014.

  • Achieve, Inc. (2012). Next generation science standards. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/. Accessed June 14, 2014.

  • 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(4), 417–437.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L. (2003). Exploring the role of nature of science understandings in decision-making. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues in science education (pp. 63–79). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boersema, D. (1998). The use of real and imaginary cases in communicating the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 255–266). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • CDC & HKEAA [Curriculum Development Council & Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority]. (2007, with updates in January 2014). Science education key learning area: Integrated science curriculum and assessment guide (secondary 4–6). Retrieved from http://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/curriculum-development/kla/science-edu/IS_C&A_Guide_updated_e.pdf. Accessed September 21, 2014.

  • Cobern, W. W., & Loving, C. C. (2001). Defining ‘science’ in a multicultural world: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85(1), 50–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College 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 

  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (1998). Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, J., & Millar, S. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture and credibility. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, A. (2009, February 2). Cutting calories may boost your memory. Cable News Network. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/26/health.calories.memory/. Accessed June 14, 2014.

  • Jarman, R., McClune, B., Pyle, E., & Braband, G. (2012). The critical reading of the images associated with science-related news reports: Establishing a knowledge, skills, and attitudes framework. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement, 2(2), 103–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, U. (2008, July 5). Tofu ‘might harm memory in elderly’. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2249859/Tofu-might-harm-memory-in-elderly.html. Accessed June 14, 2014.

  • Khishfe, R. (2012). Nature of science and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 67–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D. (2001). ‘to trust or not to trust,…’-pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., et al. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korpan, C. A., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., & Henderson, J. M. (1997). Assessing literacy in science: Evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education, 81(5), 515–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology. The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 121–144). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. E. 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., & Lederman, J. S. (2013). Mixed up about mixed methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 1073–1076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S. Y., Lin, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). College students’ scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision making. Science Education, 95(3), 497–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. (2000). Role of anomalous data and epistemological beliefs in middle students’ theory change on two controversial topics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(3), 329–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2004). Role of epistemological understanding and interest in interpreting a controversy and in topic-specific belief change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 103–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClune, B., & Jarman, R. (2010). Critical reading of science-based news reports: Establishing a knowledge, skills and attitudes framework. International Journal of Science Education, 32(6), 727–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(9), 1137–1164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meichtry, Y. J. (1993). The impact of science curricula on student views about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 429–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education. (2012). New Zealand Curriculum Guides Senior Secondary—Science. Retrieved from http://seniorsecondary.tki.org.nz/Science/What-is-science-about. Accessed September 21, 2014.

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P. (1995). Learning to live with scientific expertise: Towards a theory of intellectual communalism for guiding science teaching. Science Education, 79, 201–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 947–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Korpan, C. A. (2003). University students’ interpretation of media reports of science and its relationship to background knowledge, interest, and reading difficulty. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 123–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (1999). Interpreting popular reports of science: What happens when the reader’s world meets the world on paper? International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 317–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharrer, L., Bromme, R., Britt, M. A., & Stadtler, M. (2012). The seduction of easiness: How science depictions influence laypeople’s reliance on their own evaluation of scientific information. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 231–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schommer-Aikins, M., & Hutter, R. (2002). Epistemological beliefs and thinking about everyday controversial issues. Journal of Psychology, 136(1), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N., & Lederman, N. (2008, March). An instrument to assess views of scientific inquiry: The VOSI Questionnaire. Paper presented at the international conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Baltimore, MD. March 30–April 2, 2008.

  • The Associated Press. (2008, July 24). Head of US cancer institute warns of cellphone risks. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/head-of-u-s-cancer-institute-warns-of-cellphone-risks-1.724536. Accessed June 14, 2014.

  • Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellington, J. (1993). Using newspapers in science education. School Science Review, 74(268), 47–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (1989). The design and use of instructional graphics. In H. Mandl & J. Levin (Eds.), Knowledge acquisition from text and pictures (pp. 125–144). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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(3), 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, C., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., Klein, J. S., & Klein, P. (2001). Science at the supermarket: A comparison of what appears in the popular press, experts’ advice to readers, and what students want to know. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 37–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Science, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong

    Jessica Shuk Ching Leung

  2. Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong

    Alice Siu Ling Wong & Benny Hin Wai Yung

Authors
  1. Jessica Shuk Ching Leung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alice Siu Ling Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Benny Hin Wai Yung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica Shuk Ching Leung.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Health News Evaluation Questionnaire

1.1.1 Instructions

You are required to evaluate three news articles reporting scientific claims. Suppose that the scientific claims reported in the articles are very important to you and that you must determine whether they are trustworthy. As you read the articles, please focus in particular on the trustworthiness of the scientific claims and explain in as much detail as possible whether you agree with them or not and for what reasons. There is no right or wrong answers to the rating of trustworthiness in each article, and the way you arrive at the rating is the focus rather than the rating itself. You can use all the space provided to give your response, or use additional sheets wherever necessary.

Article (1)

Article (2)

Article (3)

1.2 Views About Science Questionnaire

1.2.1 Instructions

Please write down (in English or in Chinese) as much detail as possible for each of the following items and address all subsections of an item. Please illustrate where appropriate with examples. There are no right or wrong answers to each item. The intention is to elicit your views on a number of issues about science. Please answer each of the following questions.

  1. 1.
    1. (a)

      Do you know about the peer review process in the publication of scientific findings? Please provide a general outline of the peer review process.

    2. (b)

      Please comment on whether the peer review process is objective or not. Give examples to support your view.

  2. 2.

    After scientists have developed a scientific theory (e.g. atomic theory, evolution theory), does the theory ever change?

    • If you believe that scientific theories do not change, explain why. Defend your answer with examples.

    • If you believe that scientific theories do change:

      1. (a)

        Explain why theories change.

      2. (b)

        Explain why we bother to learn scientific theories. Defend your answer with examples.

  3. 3.
    1. (a)

      If several scientists, working independently, ask the same question and follow the same procedures to collect data, will they necessarily come to the same conclusions? Explain why or why not.

    2. (b)

      If several scientists, working independently, ask the same question and follow different procedures to collect data, will they necessarily come to the same conclusions? Explain why or why not.

    3. (c)

      Does your response to (a) change if the scientists are working together? Explain.

    4. (d)

      Does your response to (b) change if the scientists are working together? Explain.

  4. 4.

    Some claim that science is infused with social and cultural values. That is, science reflects the social and political values, philosophical assumptions, and intellectual norms of the culture in which it is practiced. Others claim that science is universal. That is, science transcends national and cultural boundaries and is not affected by social, political, and philosophical values, and intellectual norms of the culture in which it is practiced.

    • If you believe that science reflects social and cultural values, explain why and how. Defend your answer with examples.

    • If you believe that science is universal, explain why and how. Defend your answer with examples.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leung, J.S.C., Wong, A.S.L. & Yung, B.H.W. Understandings of Nature of Science and Multiple Perspective Evaluation of Science News by Non-science Majors. Sci & Educ 24, 887–912 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9736-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9736-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation