Lederman 2000
Lederman 2000
Lederman 2000
International Journal of
Science Education
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions
NO.
7, 665- 701
RESEARCH REPORT
Introduction
The preparation of scientifically literate students is a perennial goal of science
education (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] 1990,
1993, Millar and Osborne 1998). Furthermore, an adequate understanding of
nature of science (NOS) is a central component of scientific literacy (AAAS
1990, 1993, Klopfer 1969, National Science Teachers Association [NSTA]
1982). Indeed, the objective of helping students develop adequate understandings
of NOS is one of the most commonly stated objectives for science education
(Kimball 1967- 68: 110). This objective has been agreed upon by most scientists
and science educators for the past 85 years, and has recently been reemphasized in
the major reform efforts in science education (AAAS 1990, 1993, Millar and
Osborne 1998, National Research Council [NRC] 1996).
NOS
The phrase nature of science typically refers to the epistemology of science,
International Journal of Science Education ISSN 0950- 0693 print/ISSN 1464-5289 online # 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
666
science as a way of knowing, or the values and beliefs inherent to the development
of scientific knowledge (Lederman 1992). Beyond these general characterizations,
no consensus presently exists among philosophers of science, historians of science,
scientists, and science educators on a specific definition for NOS. The use of the
phrase NOS throughout this paper instead of the more stylistically appropriate
the NOS, is intended to reflecct the authors lack of belief in the existence of a
singular NOS or general agreement on what the phrase specifically means. This
lack of agreement, however, should not be disconcerting or suprising given the
multifaceted, complex, and dynamic nature of the scientific endeavour.
Conceptions of NOS have changed with developments in various scientific
disciplines. A case in point is the leap from a classical deterministic approach
in physics to a quantum indeterministic conceptualization of the dicipline.
Concomitantly, conceptualizations of NOS have changed with developments in
history, philosophy, and sociology of science: disciplines that systematically investigate the scientific endeavour. These developments have, in turn, resulted in
changing the ways in which science educators and science education organizations
have defined the phrase NOS since the turn of the century.
Changes in philosophy, sociology, and history of science
Changes in conceptions of NOS have mirrored major shifts in focus and emphasis
in the fields of philosophy, sociology, and history of science. An attempt to delineate these changes or trace their development is necessarily beyond the scope of
the present paper. However, work in the philosophy and sociology of science in the
twentieth century can be generally divided into two periods separated by Kuhns
(1962) Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Giere 1998). Pre-Kuhnian philosophy of
science was dominated by the work of logical empiricists who erected the distinction between the context of discovery and context of justification and focused
their efforts on the latter (Giere 1988). Philosophers in this tradition (e.g. Carnap
1937, Popper 1959, Reichenbach 1938, Russell 1914) were interested in developing
a normative logical account to justify scientific claims rather than a descriptive
account of how science actually works. As such, they attempted to outline the
logical and epistemological foundations of science to the exclusion of psychological
and sociological foundations that they considered external to science. The reciprocity of this philosophical orientation with history of science was evident in an
internalist approach that dominated history of science in the first half of the
twentieth century (Kuhn 1977). This historiographic tradition emphasized the
history of scientific ideas with undue regard to the contexts within which such
ideas were developed.
The first half of the twentieth century also witnessed the emergence of the
sociology of science as a field with the pioneering work of Robert Merton. He (e.g.
Merton 1949), nonetheless, was interested in providing an account of the social
structure of science rather than a social account of scientific knowledge.
Kuhns (1962) paradigmatic and revolution approach marked a shift among
philosophers (and historians) of science from emphasizing the context of justification to delving into the context of discovery. A variety of factors that were considered by empiricists to be irrational or external to science were brought into
the mix. No longer were philosophers of science accused of committing what the
logical empiricists labelled the sin of psychologism, or conflating logic with psy-
667
668
and the role of social discourse in validating scientific claims, started to appear in
definitions of NOS. The NSTA (1982) advanced that an adequate understanding
of NOS entails an understanding of the empirical and tentative nature of scientific
knowledge, and an appreciation of the central role of theory and inquiry in science.
More recently, the California Department of Education (1990) emphasized that
although science depends on evidence, scientific activtities are theory-driven and
scientists conduct their investigations from within certain frameworks of reference.
Science for All Americans (AAAS 1990) outlined three basic components that
underlie an adequate understanding of NOS. The first is viewing the world as
understandable, and yet understanding that science cannot provide answers to all
questions. The second component relates to the nature of scientific inquiry. It
entails understanding that although inquiry in science relies on logic and is empirically based, it nevertheless involves imagination and the invention of explanations.
The third component emphasizes an understanding of the social and political
aspects of science. Most recently, the National Science Education Standards
(NRC,1996) have emphasized the historical, tentative, empirical, logical, and
well-substantiated nature of scientific claims. Also emphasized were the values
of scepticism and open communication, as well as the interaction between personal, societal and cultural beliefs in the generation of scientific knowledge.
Thus, a review of the research literature on NOS needs to be undertaken and
read from the standpoint that, much like scientific knowledge, conceptions of
NOS are necessarily tentative and historical. In other words, one should realize
that conceptions of NOS currently adopted by science educators and science education organizations are not inherently better than, for instance, those emphasized during the 1960s. It is only with the advantage of hindsight that such
normative comparisons could be made. Each of the aforementioned sets of NOS
conceptions should be viewed from within the context of the systematic thinking
about scientific knowledge and practice that predominated the period in which that
set was adopted. The present review, as such, avoids adopting an evaluative stance
towards conceptions of NOS espoused in the reviewed research efforts. Rather, an
evaluative stance is embraced when examining the approaches that researchers
undertook to convey to learners desired conceptions of NOS and to assess
those conceptions.
Research on NOS
Nos has been the subject of intensive research during the past 50 years. Lederman
(1992) presented a comprehensive review of this research. He noted that research
related to NOS was conducted along four related, but distinct, lines. These lines
were:
(a) Assessment of student conceptions of the nature of science; (b) development, use,
and assessment of curricula designed to improve student conceptions of the nature of
science; (c) assessment of, and attempts to improve, teachers conceptions of the
nature of science; and (d) identifications of the relationship among teachers conceptions, classroom practice, and students conceptions.
(Lederman 1992: 332)
669
670
tions of NOS is crucial for the purpose of the present paper. As will become
evident below, this exploration has important implications for, and raises important questions regarding the fruitfulness of the present review.
671
NOS adequately met the conditions deemed necessary to enable teachers to convey
approprite conceptions of the scientific enterprise to pre-college students.
Ogunniyi (1982)
Ogunniyi (1983)
Language of Science
(LOS)
135 forced-choice
(agree/disagree)
statements
93 agree/disagree
analogous statements
60 four-alternative
multiple-choice items
18 multiple-choice items
64 forced-choice
(agree/disagree)
statements
20 five-point Likert-type
items
40 five-point Likert-type
60 multiple-choice items
Tentative and dynamic nature of science, 29 three-point Likertassumptions and values of science, and
type items
lack of a single Scientific Method
Hillis (1975)
Authors
Scientific Literary
Research Center
(1967)
NOS topics
Scharmann (1990)
Untitled
Scharmann and Harris (1992)
Ogunniyi (1983)
Akindehin (1988)
Scharmann and Harris
(1992)
Science Process
Inventory (SPI)
Form D
Wisconsin Inventory of
Science Processes
(WISP)
Test on Understanding
Science (TOUS)
Author
Developer(s)
Untitled
Instrument
Standardized instruments used to assess participants NOS views in the reviewed studies.
Trembath (1972)
Study
Table 1.
673
and Stauss (1968, 1970), Ogunniyi (1983), Olstad (1969), Riley (1979), Shapiro
(1996) and Trembath (1972). Interventions undertaken within in-service programmes included studies by Billeh and Hasan (1975), Lavach (1969), and
Scharmann adn Harris (1992). Similar attempts were also undertaken in undergraduate science content courses and included studies by Haukoos and Penick
(1983, 1985), Jones (1969), Scharmann (1990), and Spears and Zollman (1977).
Generally speaking, these studies used one of two approaches. The first
approach was advocated by science educators such as Gabel, Rubba, and Franz
(1977), Haukoos and Penick (1983, 1985), Lawson (1982), and Rowe (1974). This
approach, labelled in the present review as an implicit approach, suggests that an
understanding of NOS is a learning outcome that can be facilitated through process skill instruction, science content coursework, and doing science. Researchers
who adopted this implicit approach utilized science process skills instruction and/
or scientific inquiry activities (Barufaldi et al. 1977, Riley 1979, Trembath 1972) or
manipulated certain aspects of the learning environment (Haukoos and Penick
1983, 1985, Scharmann 1990, Scharmann and Harris 1992, Spears and Zollman
1977) in their attempts to enhance teachers NOS conceptions. Researchers who
adopted the second approach to enhancing teachers understandings of NOS
(Akindehin 1988, Billeh and Hasan 1975, Carey and Stauss 1968, 1970, Jones
1969, Lavach 1969, Ogunniyi 1983) utilized elements from history and philosophy
of science and/or instruction geared towards the various aspects of NOS to
improve science teachers conceptions. This approach, labelled in the present
review as an explicit approach to improving teachers understanding of NOS,
was advanced by educators such as Billeh and Hasan (1975), Hodson (1985),
Kimball (1967- 68), Klopfer (1964), Lavach (1969), Robinson (1965), and
Rutherford (1964).
Instruments used to assess participants conceptions of NOS
Before turning to examine the individual studies that attempted to enhance science
teachers conceptions of NOS, it is crucial to elucidate some points regarding the
assessment instruments that were used in these studies to gauge participants NOS
views. With the the exception of Shapiro (1996), researchers in the reviewed
studies used standardized paper-and-pencil instruments to assess participants
conceptions of NOS. These instruments comprised forced-choice, such as agree/
disagree, Likert-type or multiple-choice items. Table 1 presents a list of these
instruments, their developers, NOS aspects or topics they purported to assess,
and the number and type of items that each employed.
Many critisisms have been levelled against the use of standardized instruments
to assess learners NOS views. Two major criticisms were related to these instruments validity. First, Aikenhead, Ryan, and Desautels (1989) argued that such
instruments were all based on a problematic assumption. These instruments
assumed that respondents perceive and interpret an instruments items in a manner
similar to that of the instrument developers. Aikenhead et al. argued that ambiguities result from assuming that respondents understand a certain statement in
the same manner that the researchers or instrument developers would, and agree
or disagree with that statement for reasons that coincide with those of the researchers or instrument developers. Such ambiguities seriously threaten the
validity of such instruments.
674
675
views could be used, as was the case in Shapiros (1996) study, to generate descriptive profiles of participants NOS views. Such profiles greatly facilitate gauging the
practical importance of any claimed gains in participants understandings of NOS.
A final note regarding instrumentation relates to the substantive adequacy of
the instruments used in some of the reviewed studies. It was argued earlier that
passing evaluative judgements on conceptions of NOS adopted within a certain
period should be avoided. This argument was based on the premise that NOS
understandings emphasized at one point in time necessarily reflect that times
scholarship on understanding the scientific enterprise. However, such assumption
would not hold when a standardized instrument developed in the mid-1960s is
used to assess learners NOS views two or three decades later when marked
changes in conceptualizing NOS have been well documented and disseminated.
This was the case with three of the reviewed studies. An examination of table 1
indicates that Ogunniyi (1983) and Scharmann and Harris (1992) used the NOSS
developed by Kimball in 1967 (Kimball 1967- 68), and that Haukoos and Penick
(1983, 1985) used the SPI developed by Welch and Pella in 1967 (Welch and Pella
1967- 68) to assess their participants conceptions of NOS. As such, the results of
these studies should be viewed with added caution.
Improving teachers conceptions: implicit attempts
Table 2 presents a summary of the design, participants, and context and duration
of treatment of studies that adopted an implicit approach to enhancing science
teachers NOS views. Also repoted in table 2 are the mean gain scores for treatment groups and the percentage that the treatment post-test scores represent
relative to the total scores of NOS instruments used in these studies. The following
discussion focuses on the rationale and nature of the interventions undertaken by
the various researchers and the meaningfulness of the gains, if any, in NOS understandings reported for participant science teachers.
Trembath (1972) aimed to assess the influence of a small curriculum project
on prospective elementary teachers views of NOS. The curriculum project, developed at Frankston Teachers College, Australia, aimed to enhance participants
understandings of the ways in which hypotheses are developed and tested, the
logical structure of theories and laws, and the ways in which theories and laws
can be used to make different types of explanations. These broad goals were
translated into 24 behavioral objectives. Participants, however, were not presented
with these objectives at the outset of the programme.
The programme, which took 212 hours to complete, presented prospective
teachers with a set of narratives. Each narrative put forth a certain situation and
was divided into a set of frames. Each frame required students to read several
paragraphs and provide a short answer in the form of a hypothesis, prediction, or
inference. Students then compared their answers with those provided after each
frame. If the two answers agreed, then students proceeded to the next frame.
Otherwise, students were asked to re-read the frame and attempt to reconcile
their answers with the suggested ones. On completing the frames, students were
asked to provide a short answer that would serve as a section review.
It should be emphasized that participants were not made aware of the goals or
specific objectives of the programme. Moreover, the report did not indicate that
the participants were debriefed on completing a set of frames or that they were
3 3 factorial;
random assignment
Pre-test- post-test
two-treatment
Pre-test- post-test
two-treatment
Riley (1979)
Haukoos and
Penick (1983)
Haukoos and
Penick (1985)
Scharmann and
Harris (1992)
One-group
pre-test-post-test
61 two-year, comprehensive,
community college students
78 two-year, comprehensive,
community college students
90 undergraduate preservice
elementary teachers
Pre-test- post-test
two-treatment;
random assignment
Spears and
Zollman (1977)
Participants
Pre-test- post-test
control group;
random assignment
Design
Biology course
(four intact sections)
Elementary methods
programme
Physics course
(four sections)
Elementary science
and math methods
courses
Elementary teacher
preparation
programme
Context
412 hours
Integrated into
course
Integrated into
course
Four 112
hour-sessions
Integrated into
course
Integrated into
course (212
hour per week
for 14 weeks)
212 hours
Duration of
treatment
75%
59%
Post-treatment
scores relative to
total score for
instrument(s) used
72% (estimated)
79%
None for
63% (for Johnson
NOSS; 1.5%
and Peeples,
(for Johnson and 1987)
Peeples 1987)
Estimate not
possible due to
lack of data
None
8.0%
None
None (on 3
76%
SPI components)
2.5% (on the 4th)
3.5 to 6.0%
(estimated)
20.5%
Treatment group
significant gain
score
Studies that adopted an implicit approach to improving science teachers views of NOS.
Trembath (1972)
Study
Table 2.
677
Pair-wise comparisons between treatment groups and the control group as well as
comparisons between pairs of treatment groups and the control group (see table 2)
were statistically significant. Barufaldi et al. thus concluded that a methods course
which stresses inquiry methods and procedures, emphasizing a hands-on
approach integrated with individual problem solving, develops, alters, and
enhances . . . preservice teachers . . . philosophical view . . . toward the tentative
nature of scientific knowledge (149 ibid.: 293).
The authors, however, did not present enough evidence to support this rather
sweeping generalization. Barufaldi et al. did not report the pre-test mean VOST
scores or the mean gain scores for the various groups. However, if we assume that
the groups did not differ appreciably on their pre-test VOST scores and that the
control group mean score did not change appreciably from the pre-test to the posttest, then the gains achieved can be assessed. The mean post-test VOST score for
the control group was 141. The corresponding scores for the three treatment
groups were 153, 149, and 148. As such, the approximate gains achieved were
very small and ranged between 3.5 and 6 percentage points. Given that there are
200 possible points on the VOST instrument and that respondents could score 120
points by simply choosing neutral responses, it is difficult to ascertain that the
above gains reflect a meaningful improvement in participants understanding of
the tentative nature of scientific knowledge.
Spears and Zollman (1977) assessed the influence of engagement in some
degree of scientific inquiry on students understandings of the process of science.
678
Participants were randomly assigned to the four lecture sections and associated
laboratory sections of a physics course offered at Kansas State University. Some
students did not complete or missed either the pre-test or post-test. As such, data
from only about 50% of the original sample were used in the final analysis. The
authors, however, did not provide any data to indicate that the remaining participants were representative of the original population.
Two types of laboratory instructional strategies, structured and unstructured,
served as the treatments. The structured approach emphasized verification
whereas the unstructured approach stressed inquiry or discovery. Both
approaches asked students to investigate problems related to physical principles
discussed in the lectures and informed them about the avaliable equipment.
Beyond this point the two approaches differed in a major way. In the structured
laboratory, students were provided with explicit procedures with which they
attempted to verify the physical principles concerned. Students in theunstructured labroratory, however, were free to investigate the problem in whichever way
they deemed appropriate. They made their own decisions regarding what data to
collect, how to collect this data, how to treat the data, and how to interpret and
present their results.
Data analyses controlled for the participants major, years in college, and
course lecture and labroratory grades as well as the type of lecture presentation
in each of the four sections. These analyses indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between the adjusted scores of the two groups on the
Assumptions, Nature of Outcomes, and Ethics and Goals components of the SPI
Form D (Welch and Pella 1967- 68). There was a significant difference in the mean
scores on the Activities component. The mean post-test score of students in the
structured laboratory (46.3) was higher than that of students in the unstructured
laboratory (45.0). The difference, however, could not have amounted to more than
2.5 percentage points. And even though the authors did not discuss the practical
significance of this result, the observed difference was very small to be of any
practical importance. As such, compared to students in the structured laboratory
group, students in the unstructured group did not demonstrate better understanding of NOS as measured by the SPI. Doing science, either within a structured,
traditional environment or within the more advocated inquiry or discovery
approach, did not seem to improve college students understanding of NOS (see
also Carey and Stauss 1968, Kimball 1967- 68).
Riley (1979) argued that there is a growing belief among science educators,
though not empirically tested, that teachers understandings of, and attitudes
toward science would improve as a result of first-hand, manipulative experiences
and enhanced proficiency in the processes of science. Riley, like Barufaldi et al.
(1977), explicitly labelled an understanding of NOS as an affective outcome and
adopted an implicit approach to teaching about NOS through involving teachers in
doing science.
The study investigated the influence of hands-on versus non-manipulative
training in science process skills on, among other things, preservice elementary
techers understandings of NOS. The study had 3 3 factorial design with the
treatment and science grade point average as independent variables. The treatment
had three levels: active-inquiry (hands-on), vicarious-inquiry (non-manipulative),
and control. Participants were divided into three groups according to their grade
679
point average (high, medium, or low) and 30 students from each group were
randomly selected and assigned to one of three treatment levels.
The four 112 hour-session treatment involved activities that focused on various
science process skills, such as observing, classifying, inferring, predicting, communicating, measuring and the metric system, and using space/time relationships.
The only difference between the aforementioned levels of treatment was student
involvement. In the active-inquiry treatment, participants were trained in science
process skills using a hands-on, manipulative approach. Participants in the vicarious-inquiry treatment group did not manipulate any materials. They were trained
in science process skills using a demonstration approach where the instructor
exclusively manipulated all materials. The control group participants viewed
science related films for approximately the same amount of time.
Data analyses indicated that there were no significant differences between the
groups mean TOUS (Cooley and Klopfer 1961) scores related to the treatments.
As such, participants in the active-inquiry, vicarious-inquiry, and control groups
did not differ in their understandings of NOS. The author thus concluded that
prospective elementary teachers understandings of NOS were not significantly
improved through hands-on, manipulative instruction in the processes of science.
Thus, the conclusions of Rileys (1979) study stand in contrast with those of
Barufaldi et al. (1977) who concluded that doing science within the context of
methods courses could enhance prospective elementary teachers conceptions of NOS.
Haukoos and Penick (1983) investigated the effects of classroom climate on
community college students learning of science process skills and content achievement. The authors replicated their study two years later (Haukoos and Penick
1985). They argued that gains in the development of students inquiry skills and
science process skills might be related to aspects of the classroom environment
such as the extent to which instruction is directive or non-directive. Implicit to this
argument is the assumption that students learn about the nature of scienctific
inquiry implicitly through certain aspects related to the classroom environment.
The studies features two treatments: Discovery Classroom Climate (DCC)
treatment and a Non-discovery Classroom Climate (NDCC) treatment. In both
studies, participants were enrolled in intact sections of an introductory biology
course. Throughout the duration of the course, students in both groups recieved
instruction on the same content. The only difference between the two treatments
was the classroom climate that was determined by the extent to which the instructor used direct or indirect verbal behaviours. In the lecture/disscussion sessions,
students in the NDCC group were presented with the content in a manner that
conveyed the impression that science was complete and final, and seldom did the
students question it (Haukoos and Penick 1983: 631). With the DCC group, the
instructor assumed a low profile, elicited student questions, and encouraged discussion of the lecture material. All student responses and interpretations were
accepted and were not judged as right or wrong.
In the laboratory portion of the course, students carried out the same experiments using the same materials. However, during laboratory sessions, students in
the NDCC group were exactly told how to manipulate materials. Their results
were either accepted or rejected by the instructor. Students in the DCC laboratory
were alternatively encouraged to select and explore their own questions, and to
manipulate the available materials in whichever ways they deemed fit in answering
their questions. The instructor kept explicit directions and judgments to a mini-
680
mum. In this regard, the two laboratory environments were similar to the structured and unstructured or traditional and inquiry based treatments that were
employed by Spears and Zollman (1977).
To ensure the fidelity of the treatments, student- teacher interactions were
audio-taped and analysed using the Science Laboratory Interaction Categories
(SLIC) (Shymansky and Penick 1979). Student- teacher interactions were coded
and then compared with established DCC and NDCC criteria. The percentage of
total class time spent on each of the coded behaviours was calculated and used to
produce a Learning Condition Index (LCI) for each treatment. The LCI values
reported for each section of the investigated course in both studies indicated that
classroom enviroments were consistent with the respective treatments.
Data analyses in the first study (Haukoos and Penick 1983) indicated that the
DCC group had a significantly higher mean SPI score than the NDCC group. The
reported difference was on the order of about 8 percentage points. The authors
concluded that the classroom climate influenced students learning of science processes. However, Haukoos and Penick (1985) were not able to replicate these
results. Analyses in the second study revealed no statistically significant differences, at any acceptable level, between the DCC and NDCC groups. These latter
results, it should be noted, are consistent with the findings of Spears and Zollman
(1977).
The authors resorted to several factors to explain why students in the DCC
class did not demonstrate better understandings of the processes of scientific
inquiry as compared to students in the NDCC class. They noted that in the
replication study, the instructor might have developed subtle ways to render the
classroom climate in both treatments less distinct. The reported LCI scores, however, do not support this interpretation. Haukoos and Penick also noted that they
were not able to truly match students in the original study with those in replication. Students may [italics added] have been older, brighter, more motivated, or
different in other ways (1985: 166). It should be noted that the authors did not
limit the conclusions of their first study to the sample investigated. They made
rather a sweeping generalization. Now that the expected results were not obtained,
possible effects due to the participants characteristics were called upon. The
authors did not provide any data or conduct any systematic analysis to support
any of these speculative interpretations.
Moreover, Haukoos and Penick noted that we have two choices; we can question the new data or we can question the old (ibid.: 165). They nevertheless
decided only to question the new study. They did not choose even to speculate
about another, probably more plausible, interpretation: namely, that classroom
climate might not be related to developing students understandings of NOS.
The fact that the authors did not even consider the alternative interpretations
indicates an inherent bias in favour of the DCC treatment. Given that the initial
results were not replicated and that the authors insisted that some factors other
than the treatment was responsible for the new results, serious doubts could be
raised regarding the claimed influence of the classroom climate that specifically
derives from instructors verbal behaviours on college students NOS views.
Scharmann (1990) aimed to assess the effects of a diversified instructional
strategy (versus a traditional lecture approach) on freshmen college students
understandings of the nature of scientific theories, among other things. The strategy was implemented over the course of 412 hours. Participants were first given 30
681
minutes to individually respond in writing to four questions that asked about their
feelings and beliefs concerning the evolution/creation controversey. Next, students
were randomly assigned to disscusion groups of 3-5 students. They were asked to
share their responses to the above questions and then respond to four new questions. These latter questions asked each group to provide reasons that would support teaching only evolution, teaching creatin origins in addition to evolution, and
teaching neither evolution nor creation origins in science classes. Students were
also asked to decide whether, and explain why one set of reasons was more compelling than another set. Ninety minutes were allocated for this phase of the
treatment during which the author did not interfere in the course of the discussions. For the next 30 minutes, spokespersons shared their groups concerns,
differences, and points of agreement with the whole class. Following a break,
the author led a 90-minute interactive lecture/discussion that aimed to resolve
any misconceptions that arose as a result of the group discussions and were evident
in their presentations. Finally, during the last 30 minutes participants were given
the opportunity to reflect on the discussion activity.
It should be noted that, while discussing the rationale behind the expected
effectiveness of a diversified instructional strategy in enhancing students NOS
conceptions, Scharmann (1990) argued that students should be guided to use
empirical, logical, historical, and sociological criteria when attempting to establish
the validity of scientific theories. There were no indications that the experimental
group received instruction about any of these criteria in the course of the treatment. It seemed that Scharmann assumed that students would implcitly learn
about these criteria and other NOS aspects just by participating in the aforementioned discussions.
Scahrmann (1990) reported a significant difference between the pre-test and
post-test scores for both the exprimental and the control group. Students in both
groups achieved statistically significant gains in their understandings of NOS.
Scharmann concluded that both classes provided students with opportunities to
grow in their understandings of NOS but that the diversified instructional strategy
was superior in this respect. The author, however, did not provide any evidence to
support this claim. Given that both groups demonstrated gains in their understandings of NOS and given the lack of data to indicate otherwise, the effectiveness
of the treatment should be considered with extreme caution.
Scharmann and Harris aimed to assess the influences of a 3-week
NSF-sponsored summer institute on, among other things, participants understandings of NOS. The authors noted that changes in an understanding of the
nature of science can be . . . enhanced through a more indirect and applied context
. . . and through a variety of readings and activities that help participants to
discuss their NOS views (1992: 379). As such, similar to Scharmann (1990), the
authors adopted an implicit approach to improving science teachers conceptions
of NOS.
The NOSS (Kimball 1967- 68) was used to assess participants understandings
of the philosophical NOS, and an instrument developed by Johnson and Peeples
(1987) was used to assess participants applied understandings of NOS. The
authors did not elucidate the distinction between philosophical and applied
understandings of NOS.
During the first two weeks of the institute the participants were presented with
biological and geological content relevant to evolutionary theory. In addition, vari-
682
ous instructional methods and teaching approaches including lectures, smallgroup and peer discussions, field trips, and other inquiry-based approaches were
taught and modelled by the authors. The authors noted that the theme of promoting participants conceptions of NOS pervaded all the aforementioned activities. However, no direct or explicit NOS instruction was used. The final week of
the institute was used to provide the participants with an opportunity to integrate
what they had learned by designing and presenting instructional units on evolution
utilizing the various approaches and activities experienced at the institute.
Data analyses did not reveal significant differences between pre-test and posttest mean NOSS scores. However, statistically significant differences were
obtained in the case of the Johnson and Peeples (1987) instrument. The authors
thus concluded that even though participants conceptions of the philosophical
NOS were not changed, their understandings of the applied NOS were significantly improved. Scharmann and Harris (1992), however, did not comment on the
practical significance of the gain achieved by the participants. Out of 100 possible
points for the latter instrument, the pre-test and post-test mean scores were 61.74
and 63.26, respectively. The mean gain only amounted to about 112 percentage
points.
Improving teachers conceptions: explicit attempts
Almost all studies that adopted an explicit approach, similar to those that adopted
an implicit approach, were quantitative in nature. Shapiros (1996) interpretive
study was the only exception. Table 3 presents a summary of studies that utilized
an explicit approach to enhancing science teachers NOS views.
In two seperate but similar studies, Carey and Stauss (1968, 1970) investigated
whether a secondary science methods course at the University of Georgia could
significantly improve prospective and practising secondary science teachers conceptions of NOS, respectively. NOS was an underlying theme in the science
methods courses investigated in the two studies. Participants were introduced to
NOS through lectures and discussions and read articles and books related to
history and philosophy of science. Throughout the courses and irrespective of
the activity or topic discussed (writing objectives, planning, teaching methods,
evaluation, etc.) participants were always asked to discuss whether the activities
or topics were compatible with the image of NOS presented in the courses.
Carey and Stauss (1968) reported that participants made statistically significant gains in their understandings of NOS. The reported mean gain amounted to
about 4.5 percentage points on the WISP (Scientific Literacy Research Centre
1967). However, assessing the practical significance of such a gain was not possible
given that the authors failed to report standard deviations for participants preand post-test mean scores.
Data analyses for the second study (Carey and Stauss 1970) indicated that the
WISP post-test scores, total and subsets, were significantly higher than the pretest scores. The mean gains were on the order of about 11 percentage points and
were in all cases greater than the variances of the corresponding pre- and post-test
mean scores. Additionally, out of 93 possible points on the WISP, the mean posttest score was 78.61 indicating about 85% agreement with the instruments model
for NOS. It should be noted that the gains achieved in the present study were
among the highest reported in the studies reviewed in the present paper. As such,
Pre-test- post-test
group
Interpretive
(case study)
Jones (1969)
Lavach (1969)
Olstad (1969)
Ogunniyi (1983)
Akindehin (1988)
Shapiro (1996)
Design
54 student teachers
69 preservice elementary
teachers (46 in replication
study)
Non-science majors; 87
experimental, 55 control
Participants
Science methods
course
Introductory Service
Teacher Education
(ISTE) package
Science education
course
Four-week summer
methods course
Elementary science
methods course
Historically oriented
science programme
Science methods
courses
Science methods
courses
Context
11%
4.5%
Integrated into
course
Integrated into
course
Integrated into
course
Integrated into
course
Estimate not
possible due to
lack of data
3% (on NOSS)
4.5% (on LOS)
3 to 10%
4.5%
Integrated into
11%
education course
Integrated into
course
Integrated into
course
Duration of
treatment
Treatment group
significant gain
score
90%
59% (average)
75% (average)
60%
73%
85%
78%
Post-treatment
scores relative to
total score for
instrument used
Studies that adopted an explicit approach to improving science teachers views of NOS.
Study
Table 3.
683
684
Carey and Stauss (1968, 1970) were the first researchers to present evidence in
support of the notion that instruction in history and philosophy of science may
positively contribute to science teachers understandings of NOS.
Jones (1969) investigated whether non-science majors enrolled in a general
education physical science course at the University of Tulsa achieved better understandings of science and scientists compared to students enrolled in professionally
oriented courses. Three professional courses in general chemistry, general physics,
and engineering physics, offered at the same university, were chosen for comparison. Each course was concerned with a particular scientific discipline and mainly
focused on the facts, vocabulary, discoveries, and quantitative procedures of the
discipline concerned, as well as on problem solving within the discipline. The
general education physical science course, which included topics from astronomy,
physics, chemistry, and geology, served as the experimental treatment. The course
was concerned with some facts and principles from the aforementioned four disciplines but placed greater emphasis on historical development, philosophy of
science, and science-related societal issues.
Data analyses, which controlled for participants predicted college achievement, actual achievements in the investigated courses, and pre-test TOUS scores,
indicated a statistically significant difference between the mean TOUS post-test
scores for the experimental and control groups. The mean gain score for the
experimental group was +5.79 points, whereas that for the comparison group
was - 0.45. Thus, the differenec in the gain scores for the two groups amounted
to a substantial increase of about 11 percentage points.
Lavach (1969) assessed the influence of a historically oriented science programme - that he developed and conducted - on practising science teachers
understandings of science, scientists, the scientific enterprise, and the aims and
methods of science as measured by the TOUS. Lavach claimed that the study had
a pre-test-post-test control-group design. The author, however, did not pre-test
the control group and thus impregnated the study with a variety of extraneous
variables, such as testing effect and history, any of which could have contributed to
any gains demonstrated by the experimental group.
Teachers in the experimental group met for 3-hour sessions per week over 11
weeks. Each session consisted of a 2-hour lecture/demonstration followed by a
one-hour laboratory. In the laboratory session, teachers replicated some of the
experiments that were conducted by the scientist under discussion. The nature
of the control group experiences (or lack thereof) was not elucidated.
Data analyses reveled a statistically significant difference between the mean
pre- and post-test TOUS scores for the experimental group (35.27 and 38.91,
respectively). Out of 60 possible points on the TOUS, the mean gain amounted
to 6 percentage points. The author also reported statistically significant differences
between the experimental and control group mean post-test TOUS scores. It
should be noted, however, that this latter comparison was not valid given that
teachers in the experimental group achieved a higher mean pre-test score on the
TOUS (35.27) than that achieved by teachers in the control group on the post-test
(30.06). Relative to the difference between the two groups mean post-test scores
that achieved statistical significance, the difference between the control group
mean post-test score and the experimental group mean pre-test score would
have achieved a similar level of statistical significance. These initial differences
between the two groups were not taken into account when the comparison was
685
It should be noted that this was the first reported attempt to improve science
teachers understandings of NOS by employing formal and direct instruction
about this aspect of science. There were no indications that the participants
were instructed in or assigned readings from history or philosophy of science.
While the pre-test mean NOST scores for the four teacher groups were not
significantly different, the post-test mean scores were. The physical science and
chemistry groups achieved significantly better than the biology and the physics
groups. The mean gain scores of the chemistry (4.15), physical science (5.66), and
686
physics (2.00) groups were statistically significant. The biology group mean gain
score (1.67) did not achieve statistical significance. These mean gains ranged
between about 3 percentage points for the physics group to about 10 percentage
points for the physical science group. The authors thus concluded that formal
instruction on NOS contributed to significant gains in teachers NOS understandings. The authors, however, did not comment on the practical significance or
meaningfulness of the achieved gains. However, irrespective of whether the
gains could be considered important or not, the post-test mean NOST scores
achieved by the chemistry (36.51), physical science (36.02), and physics (33.64)
groups were not high. Given that there are 60 possible points on the NOST, these
latter scores might be indicative of inadequate understandings of, at least, some
aspects of NOS addressed in the training course.
Ogunniyi (1983) assessed the influence of a science education course that
presented integrated topics in history and philosophy of science on student
teachers conceptions of NOS and language of sciences measured by the NOSS
(Kimball 1967- 68) and LOS (Ogunniyi 1982), respectively. The course, developed
by the author, covered several topics, including Origin of scientific thought; . . .
significant scientific revolutions and their consequences; nature of scientific
inquiry; eptisemological foundations of science; science and superstition; characteristics of scientific and traditional societies; [and] scientific literacy ( Ogunniyi
1983: 194). Lectures were augmented by discussions and outside readings.
Data analyses revealed statistically significant differences between participants pre-test and post-test scores on both instruments used. However, given
that there are 59 and 64 possible points on the NOSS and the LOS respectively,
participants mean post-test NOSS (10.72) and LOS scores (38.48) did not seem to
reflect adequate understandings of nature and the language of science.
Akinedehin (1988) argued that attempts to help science teachers develop adequate conceptions of NOS need to be explicit. The author assessed the influence of
an instructional package, the Introductory Science Teacher Education (ISTE) package, on prospective secondary science teachers conceptions of NOS. The package
comprised nine units that included lectures, discussions, and laboratory sessions.
The first unit introduced student teachers to the nature of knowledge and
varying ways of knowing, while the second discussed various aspects of the scientific enterprise and scientific disciplines. The third unit presented participants
with a model of scientific inquiry that emphasized generating and defining problems, generating hypotheses, and experimenting as well as interactions between
these various aspects. The model also stressed the role of established theory,
ethical and regulative mechanisms, logical and mathematical systems, and creativity in scientific investigation. The fourth unit was intended to reinforce student
teachers understandings of scientific inquiry through having them map similarities between Francesco Redis work on refuting the notion of spontaneous generation and aspects of the inquiry model with which they were presented. The fifth
unit presented participants with an overview of the state of knowledge before the
Greeks. Broad developments in scientific thought were then traced all the way
from the fourth up to the twentieth century. During the sixth unit, participants
were provided with the opportunity to practise their understandings of scientific
inquiry by conducting investigations to find answers to genuine problems in chemistry, biology, and physics. The seventh unit presented students with natural
phenomena and various corresponding explanations and invited them to discuss
687
688
The repertory grid had two dimensions. The first comprised personal constructs and the second elements related to conducting scientific investigations. The
fifteen personal constructs were related to scientific investigation and each represented a continuum between two opposite poles. Examples of these constructs
included using the imagination-spontaneous ideas versus recipe-like prescriptive
work, creating new knowledge versus discovering what exists - the way things
are, and using the scientific method to solve the problem versus not using any
particular method. The personal constructs were used to provide descriptive
ratings for twelve elements along the second dimension of the grid. Like the
constructs, participants were provided with these elements that represented typical
experiences encountered in the course of conducting a scientific investigation, such
as defining a problem for investigation, delineating relevant variables, and designing tests. For each of the 12 elements, the student teachers completed a grid or
chart rating the elements on each of the aforementioned 15 personal constructs.
The ratings were given along a five-point scale that ran between the opposite poles
of each construct.
Changes in student teachers thinking about the nature of scientific investigations were assessed by comparing the grids completed prior to and after conducting the independent investigations. Pronounced movements on the grids were
focal points for discussion during the aforementioned interviews. The interviews
were analysed in conjunction with other materials generated during the study.
Changes in student teachers thinking were coded and organized into categories.
These categories were eventually organized into themes of change about the
nature of investigations in science as a result of involvement in independent inquiries. Tweleve change themes were identified.
In the present report, Shapiro (1996) only reported in detail on three themes
of change that were evident in the case of one prospective elementary teacher, Jan,
a student teacher selected from the fourth year cohort. In this regard, it should be
noted that the idiosyncrasy of the changes in teachers thinking and the possible
uniqueness of the reported case place limits on the results of the present study.
The first change theme was in Jans ideas about the nature of the steps and procedures of investigations in science. Jan indicated that she often thought of doing
science as being synonymous with following rules and checklists. After participating in the investigation, she came to appreciate the role of original thinking and
imagination in devising ways to come up with answers to a research question. The
second change theme was in Jans thinking about what science is. At the beginning
of the methods class, Jan indicated that science is a body of information that has
been tested and re-tested that it now achieved the status of facts. After the completion of the investigation, Jan noted that she came to view science more as a
process of inquiry and less as a mere collection of facts. She also indicated that her
experience helped her to appreciate the complexity of inquiring into eveyday
occurrences and the difficulty of drawing conclusions from the generated data.
Finally, in the third identified change theme, Jan shifted from an objectivist
view of science to one that emphasized the role of researchers in creating new
knowledge. It should be noted, however, that Shapiro (1996) did not explicate
the areas in which Jan showed little or no change in her thinking about the nature
of investigation in science. Thus, the reported case study represented an unbalanced treatment of the issue.
689
As far as all the participants in the present study were concerned, the author
noted that the major change for most of them was the development of an appreciation for the complexity of the process of designing and conducting an investigation. Moreover, there was an apparent shift in participants views towards thinking
of science as a collaborative enterprise.
Probably the most important features of the present study were its emphasis
on reflection and its explicitness. Shapiro (1996) noted that students were often
encouraged to reflect on their experiences. Moreover, the author emphasized the
reflective nature of the interviews that allowed student teachers to have insights
into changes in their thinking about science . This was possible due to two reasons.
The first was the participants involvement in independent investigations, which
provided them with specific examples when reflecting on and delineating how
their experiences affected their thinking about NOS. The second reason was the
fact that student teachers were provided with specific and relevant constructs and
elements that they utilized to reflect on particular aspects of their investigations.
This represented an explicit aspect of the approach used in the present study to
enhance participants views of NOS. In this respect Shapiro noted that the use of
personal constructs allowed reflection on features of changes in thinking that were
not immediately apparent to students (ibid.: 554)
Appraisal, discussion and conclusions
Before assessing the success of the reviewed attempts in enhancing science
teachers views of NOS, the assumptions inherent to the alternitive approaches
used in the reviewed studies will be examined.
Implicit and explicit approaches: a closer look at underlying assumptions
Before turning to address this issue, an important point should be clarified. It
cannot be over-emphasized that the above delineation should not be taken to
mean that implicit and explicit approaches differ in terms of kind. That is, not
every instructional sequence in history (or philosophy) of science is an explicit
attempt to enhance learners conceptions of NOS, nor is every science processskills instructional sequence or science-based inquiry activity an implicit approach
to achieve that end. For instance, Russell noted that if we wish to use the history
of science to influence students understanding of science, we must . . . treat [historical] material in ways which illuminate particular characteristics in science
(1981: 56). As such, an instructional sequence in history of science can be labelled
as an implicit approach if it were devoid of any discussion of one or more aspects of
NOS. Similarly, involving learners in science-based inquiry activities can be more
of an explicit approach if the learners were provided with opportunities to reflect
on their experiences from within a conceptual framework that explicates some
aspects of NOS.
Shapiro (1996), for instance, involved prospective elementary teachers in independent scientific investigations. In this sense, those student teachers were doing
science, and such an approach could be lablled implicit. Shapiro, however, provided prospective teachers with personal constructs to help them reflect on specific
aspects of their investigations. Some of these constructs, as previously noted, were
concerned with specific aspects of NOS. These constructs represented a concep-
690
tual framework or an explicit tool that guided students in their thinking about, and
reflections on the activities in which they were involved.
The basic difference between implicit and explicit approaches, it follows, is
not a matter of the kind of activities used to promote NOS understandings. The
difference lies in the extent to which learners are provided (or helped to come to
grips) with the conceptual tools, such as some key aspects of NOS, that would
enable them to think about and reflect on the activities in which they are engaged.
This difference derives from the assumptions underlying the two approaches.
First, it seems that advocates of an implicit approach assumed that learning
about NOS would result as a by-product of the learners engagement in
science-based activities. They expected science teachers to learn about NOS as a
consequence of instruction in science process-skills and/or involvement in inquirybased activities, or as a result of changes in the learning environment despite the
absense of any direct references to NOS. For instance, Barufaldi et al. noted that
students presented with numerous hands-on, activity-centered, inquiry-oriented
science experiences . . . should have developed a more tentative view of science
(1977: 291). There were no indications that these activities were followed by any
discussions of the notion that scientific knowledge is not certain. Similarly, under
the implicit approach, changes in the learning environment were believed to
engender among learners better understandings of NOS. For instance, Haukoos
and Penick noted that if the instructor assumed a low profile by sitting at student
eye level and stimulated discussion of the . . . materials with questions designed to
elicit student ideas, then learners would develop an understanding of the notion
that scientific knowledge is not complete or absolute (1983: 631). Again, the
researchers did not attempt to make students aware of the facts that scientific
knowledge is tentative. They assumed that the instructors verbal behaviours
would convey the latter notion to the learners.
Contrary to what was assumed under the implicit approach, advocates of an
explicit approach argued that the goal of enhancing science teachers conceptions
of NOS should be planned for instead of being anticipated as a side effect or
secondary product of . . . science content or science methods classes (Akindehin
1988: 73). They advanced that certain aspects of NOS should be made explicit in
any attempt aimed towards fostering adequate conceptions of NOS among learners. For instance, Billeh and Hasan (1975) presented in-service secondary science
teachers with twelve lectures that dealt with, among other things, the nature of
scientific investigations, the nature of scientific knowledge, and sociological
aspects of science. Others used instruction in history and philosophy of science
to help science teachers achieve better understandings of the scientific enterprise
(e.g. Jones 1969, Ogunniyi 1983). Still others used a combination of these elements. For instance, in addition to instruction on NOS, Akindehin (1988) used
Francesco Redis work on refuting the notion of spontaneous generation to illustrate aspects of a dynamic model of scientific investigation with which he presented preservice science teachers. Moreover, inquiry-based activities were
sometimes used in addition to the aforementioned elements to enhance teachers
conceptions of NOS (e.g. Akindehin 1988, Olstad, 1969, Shapiro, 1996).
The aforementioned differences between implicit and explicit approaches
seem to be rooted in yet another assumption. This second assumption may help
to clarify why advocates of an implicit approach expected learners to develop
certain understandings of NOS by participating in science-based activities or,
691
for instance, as a result of the instructor assuming a low profile during instruction
when these approaches lacked any reflective elements or direct references to NOS.
Advocates of an implicit approach, it seems, assumed learning about NOS to be an
affective goal. Barufaldi et al. (1977) and Riley (1979) explicitly labelled attaining
an understanding of NOS an affective learning outcome. As such, conceptions of
NOS were thought of as attitudes or dispositions towards science.
Consequently, attainment of better conceptions of NOS would, as would favourable attitudes towards science, be facilitated through successful experiences in
doing science. By comparison, those researchers who used an explicit approach
seemed to consider developing and understanding of NOS to be a cognitive
learning outcome. And even though none of the latter researchers made explicit
use of the label, it was rather plausible to infer this from the very fact that they
presented science teachers with lectures that specifically addressed clearly delineated aspects of NOS (e.g. Akindehin 1988, Billeh and Hasan 1975, Carey and
Stauss 1968, 1970, Olstad 1969). To sum up, two interrelated assumptions seemed
to underlie the implicit approach. The first depicted attaining an understanding of
NOS to be an affective learning outcome. This assumption entailed a second one:
the assumption that learning about NOS would result as a by-product of doing
science.
The assumptions underlying the implicit approach harbour some na ve views
about NOS. Under this approach, it is assumed that aspects of NOS can be directly
read from the records of the scientific enterprise and its practices. In a sense, a oneto-one correspondence is assumed between the practice of science and NOS. As
such, one can discover aspects of NOS by going through the motions of science.
However, NOS as an enterprise, if you will, is a reflective endeavour. The varying images of science that have been constructed throughout the history of the
scientific enterprise are, by and large, the result of the collective endeavours of
historians of science, philosophers of science, sociologists of science, scientists
turned historians or philosophers, and reflective scientists. Within a certain time
frame, the various aspects that are taken to be representative of the scientific
enterprise reflect the collective attempts of those individuals to reconstruct the
history and activities of science in an attempt to understand its workings. The
endeavour to delineate various aspects of NOS is not a matter of merely reading
the book of science or going through its motions, but rather a matter of putting
questions to that book and reflecting on that practice. Kuhn (1970) noted a that
shift in the kind of questions that historians asked of the records of science has
completely transformed the way science is viewed.
It follows that even though any attempt to foster better understandings of
NOS among science teachers should be framed within the context of the content
and activities of science, these attempts, nevertheless, should be explicit and
relflective. It is essential that teachers be provided with conceptual frameworks
that would help them to construct better understandings of certain aspects of
NOS. These conceptual frameworks, as previously noted, are the products of a
purposeful and elaborate endeavour by a collective of individuals who examined
and continue to examine the scientific enterprise. It is unlikely that prospective or
practising science teachers would be able to construct such elaborate conceptual
frameworks through their relatively limited experiences with the various dimensions of the scientific enterprise, and enterprises that systematically study the
scientific endeavour (i.e. history, philosophy, and sociology of science).
692
The underlying assumptions of the implicit approach seemed to have compromised its effectiveness in enhancing science teachers understandings of NOS.
If a more critical appraisal of the success of the implicit and explicit approaches is
deferred for the moment, and if the reviwed studies are examined on the basis of
the statistical models that were employed and the numerical gains that were
reported, then it could be concluded that - to the extent that the instruments in
use faithfully assessed participants NOS views - an explicit approach was generally more effective in fostering appropriate conceptions of NOS among prospective and practising science teachers. This conclusion is based on the fact that, on
the one hand, all eight studies that employed an explicit approach reported statistically significant gains in participant science teachers conceptions of NOS as
measured by the respective instruments in use (Akindehin 1988, Billeh and
Hasan 1975, Carey and Stauss 1968, 1970, Jones 1969, Lavach 1969, Ogunniyi
1983, Olstad 1969). On the other hand, of the eight studies that employed an
implicit approach, four reported no statistically significant gains in participants
understandings of NOS as measured by the same instruments (Haukoos and
Pennick 1985, Riley 1979, Scahrmann and Harris 1992, Spears and Zollman
1977). Moreover, the results in a fifth study (Scharmann 1990) were equivocal.
Nonetheless, a more critical appraisal of the effectiveness of the various
attempts undertaken to enhance science teachers conceptions of NOS is central
to the present review. This appraisal should, as noted earlier, be undertaken from
the standpoint that the teachers resultant understandings of NOS would adequately meet the condition deemed necessary to enable those teachers to convey
appropriate conceptions of the scientific enterprise to their students.
693
It is against this knowledge base that one is tempted to appraise the success of
the attempts undertaken to enhance science teachers understandings of NOS.
However, such an appraisal may be unrealistic given that PCK usually develops
as a result of extensive and extended experiences in teaching a certain topic.
Alternatively, what needs to be emphasized is that teaching about NOS requires
science teachers to have more than a rudimentary or superficial knowledge and
understanding of various aspects of NOS. Those teachers should be able to comfortably discourse about NOS (Robinson 1969), lead discussions regarding various
aspects of NOS, design science-based activities that would help students to comprehend those aspects, and contextualize their teaching about NOS with some
examples or stories from history of science. For instance, it is not enough for
teachers to know that scientific knowledge is socially and culturally embedded.
They should be able to use examples and/or simplified case histories from scientific practice to substantiate this claim and make it accessible and understandable
to students.
Appraised against the above background, it is safe to conclude that, in general,
the aforementioned studies were not successful in fostering among science teachers
understandings of NOS that would enable them to effectively teach this valued
aspect of science. This conclusion is based on three common features of the
studies. This first relates to the practical significance of the gross numerical
gains reported in the various studies. If we grant that teachers scores on the
various instruments that purported to measure their NOS conceptions were faithful representations of those teachers views of science, we still come to the conclusion that the statistically significant gains reported were mostly too small to be of
any practical significance (see the sixth column in table 2 and table 3).
Haukoos and Penick (1985) and Riley (1979) reported no statistically significant gains in participants scores on the SPI and TOUS respectively. Scharmann
and Harris (1992) reported no significant gains in participants NOSS scores.
Significant gains, nevertheless, were reported for paticipants scores on another
instrument (Johnson and Peeples 1987). However, the reported mean gain scores
on this latter instrument amounted to a mere 1.5 percentage points. Participants in
the Spears and Zollman (1977) study achieved no significant gains on three of the
four components of the SPI. The authors, however, reported a gain that amounted
to 2.5 percentage points on the activities component of that instrument. Ogunniyi
(1983) reported a statistically significant gain that amounted to about 3 percentage
points on the NOSS. Barufaldi et al. (1977) obtained an average gain of about 4
percentage points on the VOST. Carey and Stauss (1968) and Olstad (1969)
reported mean gain scores of about 4.5 percentage points on the TOUS. The
gain achieved in Lavachs (1969) study was on the order of about 6 percentage
points. Finally, Haukoos and Penick (1983) obtained a significant gain on the order
of 8 percentage points on the SPI. However, this result was severely compromised
by the fact that the authors were not able to replicate it in their second study
(Haukoos and Penick 1985).
A second feature that characterized many studies was that irrespective of the
gains achieved, the participants post-teatment scores indicated, at best, limited
understandings of NOS (see the seventh column in table 2 and table 3). For
instance, the post-test mean NOSS scores achieved by teachers in the Ogunniyi
(1983) study indicated less than 20 per cent agreement with the model for NOS
adopted by the developers of the instrument. Bileh and Hasan (1975) reported
694
695
696
References
(AAAS) American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990) Science for all
Americans (New York: Oxford University Press).
(AAAS) American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993) Benchmarks for
Science Literacy: A Project 2061 Report. (New York: Oxford University Press).
697
ABD-EL-KHALICK, F., BELL, R. L. and LEDERMAN, N. G. (1998) The nature of science and
instructional practice: making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417- 437.
ABD-EL-KHALICK, F. and BOUJAOUDE , S. (1997) An exploratory study of the knowledge base
for science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 673- 699.
ABIMBOLA, I. O. (1983) The relevance of the new philosophy of science for the science
curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 83, 181- 193.
AIKENHEAD, G. (1973) The measurement of high school students knowledge about science
and scientists. Science Education, 57, 539-549.
AIKENHEAD, G., RYAN, A. and DESAUTELS, J. (1989) Monitoring student views on sciencetechnology-society issues: the development of multiple choice items. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,
San Francisco, CA, April.
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.
BALL, D. L. and MCDIARMID, G. W. (1990) The subject-matter preparation of teachers. In
W. R. Houston (ed.) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (New York:
Macmillan), pp, 437- 465.
BARNES, B. (1974) Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory (London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul).
BARUFALDI , J. P., BETHEL, L. J. and LAMB, W. G. (1977) The effect of a science methods
course on the philosophical view of science among elementay education majors.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 289- 294.
BEHNKE, F. L. (1950) Reactions of scientists and science teachers to statements bearing on
certain aspects of science and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 61,
193-207.
BILLEH, V. Y. and HASAN, O. E. (1975) Factors influencing teachers gain in understanding
the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12, 209- 219.
BLOOR, D. (1976) Knowledge and Social Imagery (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul).
BORK, A. M. (1967) The Reed College M.A.T. Program in Science: A Study (Portland, OR:
Reed College).
BRICKHOUSE, N. W. and BODNER, G. M. (1992) The beginning science teacher: classroom
narratives of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29,
471-485.
BROADHURST , N. A. (1970) A study of selected learning outcomes of graduating high school
students in South Australian schools. Science Education, 54, 17-21.
BROWN, S. and CLARKE , N. (1960) International Education in Physics (Michigan: Michigan
Institute of Technology).
BRUSH , S. G. (1969) The role of history in the teaching of physics. The Physics Teacher, 7,
271.
California Department of Education (1990) Science Framework for California Public Schools
(Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education).
CAREY, R. L. and STAUSS, N. G. (1968) An analysis of the understanding of the nature of
science by prospective secondary science teachers. Science Education, 52, 358- 363.
CAREY, R. L. and STAUSS, N. G. (1969) An analysis of the relationship between prospective
science teachers understanding of the nature of science and certain academic variables. Bulletin of the Georgia Academy of Science, 27, 148-158.
CAREY, R. L. and STAUSS, N. G. (1970) An analysis of experienced science teachers understanding of the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 70, 366- 376.
CARNAP , R. (1937) The Logical Syntax of Language (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul).
Centre of Unified Science Education (1974) The Dimensions of Scientific Literacy
(Columbus, OH: Ohio State University).
Central Association for Science and Mathematics Teachers (1907) A consideration of the
principles that should determine the courses in biology in secondary schools. School
Science and Mathematics, 7, 241-247.
COLLINS, H. M. (1985) Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Knowledge
(2nd edn) (London: Sage).
698
699
700
701
SHAPIRO, B. L. (1996) A case study of change in elementary student teacher thinking during
an independent investigation in science: learning about the face of science that does
not yet know. Science Education, 80, 535-560.
SHULMAN, L. S. (1986) Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15, 4-14.
SHULMAN, L. S. (1987) Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57, 1- 22.
SHYMANSKY , J. A. and PENICK, J. E. (1977) The use of systematic observations to improve
college science laboratory. Science Education, 63, 195-203.
SOLOMON, J., DUVEEN, J., SCOT, L. and 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.
SPEARS, J. and ZOLLMAN, D. (1977) The influence of structured versus unstructured laboratory on students understanding the process of science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 14, 33-38.
STOFFLET, R. and STODDART , T. (1994) The ability to understand and use conceptual change
pedagogy as a function of prior content learning experience. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 31, 31-51.
TAMIR, P. and ZOHAR, A. (1991) Anthropomorphism and teleology in reasoning about
biological phenomena. Science Education, 75, 57-68.
TREAGUST , D. F., DUIT, R. and FRASER, B. J. (1996) Overview: research on students preinstructional conceptions - the driving force for improving teaching and learning in
science and mathematics. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit and B. J. Fraser (eds) Improving
Teaching and Learning in Science and Mathematics (New York: Teachers College
Press), pp. 1- 14.
TREMBATH, R. J. (1972) The structure of science. The Australian Science Teachers Journal,
18, 59-63.
VAN FRAASSEN, B. C. (1985) Empiricism in the philosophy of science. In P. M. Churchland
and C. A Hooker (eds) Images of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), pp.
245-308.
WELCH, W. W. and 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, 64.
WELCH, W. W. and WALBERG, H. J. (1967- 68) An evaluation of summer institute programs
for physics teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 105-109.
WELCH, W. W. and WALBERG, H. J. (1972) A national experiment in curriculum evaluation.
American Educational Research Journal, 38, 373, 383.
WILSON, L. (1954) A study of opinions related to the nature of science and its purpose in
society. Science Education, 38, 159-164.
WILSON, S. M., SHULMAN, L. S. and RICHERT, E. R. (1987) 150 different ways of knowing:
Representation of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (ed.) Exploring Teachers
Thinking (New York: Taylor and Francis).
WOOD, R. L. (1972) University education students understanding of the nature and process
of science. School Science and Mathematics, 72, 73-79.
YAGER, R. E. and WICK, J. W. (1966) Three emphases in teaching biology: a statistical
comparison of results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4, 16-20.