JPII 9 (3) (2020) 451-464

Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia

http://journal.unnes.ac.id/index.php/jpii

A STUDY ON DEMONSTRATION OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE

IN SCIENCE TEXTBOOKS: HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY
OF SCIENCE PERSPECTIVES

Z. Ayık*1 and B. Coştu2

1
Harran University, Turkey
2
Yıldız Technical University, Turkey

DOI: 10.15294/jpii.v9i3.26009

Accepted: September 2nd 2020. Approved: September 28th 2020. Published: September 30th 2020

ABSTRACT

Many scholars in the teaching of science put forth that the perennial target of science education is to teach the
nature of science (NOS), and science textbooks play a crucial role in the teaching of the nature of science (NOS).
Understanding the nature of science is said to be effective when both understanding science concepts and doing
science. Numerous studies focus on the teaching of NOS. This study investigates the effect of a science content
that is prepared in history and philosophy of science (HPS) perspective on the NOS understandings of pre-service
science teachers. 34 sophomore pre-service science teachers participated in the study. The quasi-experimental
method was used by employing a pre-test, an intervention, and a post-test which is the same as the pre-test. The
intervention involved the presentation of science content from the HPS perspective in six weeks long of discus-
sions. Data were collected through a survey that revealed categorical views regarding the characteristics of the
NOS. The results showed that the demonstration of atom theories in the HPS perspective gave a positive effect on
the pre-service science teachers in understanding the NOS.

© 2020 Science Education Study Program FMIPA UNNES Semarang

Keywords: science textbooks; nature of science; history and philosophy of science; science education

INTRODUCTION of the majority of national science education

curricula such as ACARA (2015); NRC (2012);
The main goal of science education has NGSS (2013 ). Allchin (2017) claims that stu-
been controversial for decades. However, scienti- dents should understand how science is done,
fic literacy is now accepted as the main goal of how science progresses, how knowledge is built
science education (Allchin, 2013). McDonald & on, and how to reach new knowledge. Besides,
Abd-El-Khalick (2017) proposed that being scien- the recommendations on teaching the NOS and
tifically literate requires the ability to (1) “apply its social practices for school science have been
and reason scientifically” (2) “master the discour- increased (Duschl & Grandy, 2013). Osborne et
se of science”, and (3) “understand the historical al. (2003) pointed out the importance of inclu-
and epistemological significance of the learned ding NOS into science curricula and suggested
concepts”. Especially the third component dea- the need for consensus on determining the com-
ls with the understanding the nature of science ponents of NOS to integrate into science curricu-
(hereafter NOS) which is seen as an integral ele- la. Thus, NOS is becoming a core component of
ment of scientific literacy, and the main focus both science education research and curriculum
policy around the globe (Yang et al., 2020).
*Correspondence Address
E-mail: [email protected]
452 Z. Ayık and B. Coştu / JPII 9 (3) (2020) 451-464

McDonald & Abd-El-Khalick (2017) posit Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2017). Given that science
that there is not a common agreement on/ defi- textbooks significantly influence students’ under-
nition of NOS and probably there will never be standing of NOS (McDonald & Abd-El-Khalick,
since science is a “complex and multifaceted hu- 2017), this study focuses on how NOS can be
man endeavor”. Yet, there are two general views integrated into content presentations in college-
on NOS, namely the domain-general view which level general science textbooks. In this line, we
proposes that there are a set of non-controversial claim that science textbooks are an indispensable
aspects of science that may be taught in school component of science education and those ele-
and the domain-specific view of NOS that claim ments have an important role in the teaching of
“different science disciplines have their own dis- the NOS as well. Relevant literature (Niaz, 1998;
tinct natures of science” (Kampourakis, 2016). Rodriguez & Niaz, 2004; Niaz & Coştu, 2009) re-
Allchin (2017) argued that before addressing the ported that teaching and learning activities both
question of “what is NOS”, the question of “why in and out of the classroom are more emphasized
NOS” should come first. He puts forth answer rather than giving attention to the preparation of
of “why” as functional scientific literacy espe- science textbooks.
cially in criticizing the consensus view of NOS.
According to Pearl & Mackenzie (2018), the ans- Science Textbooks and Teaching of the NOS
wer of “why” is “to understand science as a way Numerous studies (Niaz, 1998; Rodri-
of learning”. Allchin (2013) extends this idea to guez & Niaz, 2004; Niaz & Coştu, 2009, McDo-
the teaching of NOS for a functional scientific nald & Abd-El-Khalick,2017; Yang et al., 2020)
literacy that must be contextualized in a whole revealed the importance of content presentation.
science approach according to which students un- Their common conclusion was that there seems
derstand the process of “how scientific practice is no effort to prepare science textbooks in science
done”, “how scientific knowledge is produced” teacher education programs to improve prospecti-
and “how it reflected to society”. Furthermore, ve teachers’ understanding of the NOS. Patterson
textbooks play a crucial and central role in scien- et al. (2017) claim that “for many decades, the
ce education at schools (Kahveci, 2010; Roseman practice of science education has been dominated
et al., 2010; Kloser, 2013; Yustina et al., 2020) by a focus on ‘hands-on’ inquiry”. They empha-
because both classroom teaching and homework size the paucity of interest in preparing textbooks
activities are majorly textbook oriented. Moreo- and expressed the importance of reading material
ver, Fogleman et al. (2011) stated that school tex- and meaning is represented. Moreover, in the stu-
tbooks can influence the teaching and learning dy, the learning of scientific knowledge may oc-
strategies followed by teachers, therefore have a cur within a social interaction through which the
high potential of impacting learning experien- learner can interact with the source of scientific
ces and conceptual understandings of students. knowledge (Patterson et al., 2017). Accordingly,
Similarly, in many countries, science textbooks science textbooks have indispensable potential
are the core of teaching and learning resources to reflect the characteristics of science (Kloser,
for teachers and students. Science textbooks are 2013). Furthermore, regarding the philosophical
seen as influential teaching resources which have perspective of scientific content presentation in
a substantial role in the science classroom and so science textbooks, Nobel laureate theoretical phy-
it should help students develop informed concep- sicist Leon Cooper critiques that textbooks are
tions of NOS because “it is most likely that the generally written in a positivist epistemological
values and assumptions embedded or explicated view in which understanding the nature of scien-
in the language of the textbook, and its associated ce is quite difficult (Niaz et al., 2010). As there
images, will influence students’ views about the are numerous efforts trying to enhance teaching
nature of the science” (McDonald & Abd-El- and understanding of the NOS in the research
Khalick, 2017). Furthermore, Yang et al. (2020) area, the situation that Cooper mentions poses a
and McDonald (2017) stated that “how science problematic and contradictory situation in terms
textbooks should portray NOS aspects have been of both conceptual and theoretical considerations
a keen interest to science educators.” regarding the nature of science.
The previous research investigating how A recent study conducted by Yang et al.
NOS is represented and demonstrated in school’s (2020) focused on how NOS is represented and
science textbooks is generally showing that NOS demonstrated by the science textbooks used in
does not receive much attention, not represented Korean schools. Their analysis framework is Er-
in an informed manner, insufficient and expres- duran & Dagher’s (2014) RFN view which is a
sed inappropriately (Vesterinen et al., 2013; re-conceptualized form of Irzik & Nola’s (2011)
 Z. Ayık and B. Coştu / JPII 9 (3) (2020) 451-464
453

FRA view. It explains NOS in terms of similari- Earlier Studies on HPS to Develop Student
ties and differences among science disciplines in Understanding of NOS through Textbook
which science is viewed as “a cognitive–epistemic Representations
and social institutional system”. The results indi- Allchin (2013) remarked that the history of
cated that science textbooks tend to focus on the science (HOS) can be used within teaching scien-
cognitive and epistemic characteristics of science, ce content, methodological skills, and this way
with a limited representation of social and insti- appropriate NOS understanding may be achie-
tutional NOS aspects. Another study conducted ved. It is suggested nine ways in which the science
by DiGiuseppe (2014) examined the role of the teacher may benefit form history. The benefits of
author, publisher, editor, and reviewers of a high HOS are expressed as follows, (1) contextualizing
school chemistry textbook regarding on how rep- and motivating, (2) clarifying concepts, (3) revea-
resentations of NOS were developed and incor- ling misconception, (4) celebrating achievements,
porated in two chapters of the textbook. DiGiu- (5) promoting scientific careers, (6) developing
seppe (2014) found examined science textbooks inquiry skills, (7) profiling the nature of science,
as weak in representing aspects of NOS. Among (8) highlighting science as social, (9) +9-port-
the studies, those focused on the role of science raying the cultural contexts of science”. Lin &
textbook are Park et al. (2019) who studied the Chen (2002) reported that the inclusion of HPS
representation of NOS within the content presen- as a method for enhancing understanding of the
tation of general relativity in physics textbooks. NOS into chemistry courses must be considered
Moreover, Park et al. (2019) studied how tex- by science teacher training programs. This study
tbook-based learning activities can help students embraces the view that HPS can facilitate peda-
improve their understanding of NOS. gogical support for teaching science and NOS.
Roles of science textbooks in representing Likewise, Lin (1998) conducted a study in which
the aspects of NOS getting more attention recent- HPS is used as a pedagogic strategy for enhancing
ly. McDonald & Abd-El-Khalick (2017) highligh- understanding of the NOS. As the result of the
ted that studies in this context can be categori- study, there was an enhancement because of the
zed into “three lines of research”. These include integration of HOS on understanding the nature
studies that examine science textbooks for the (1) of creativity, the theory-based nature of scienti-
“emphasis given to NOS as a single theme” (2) fic observations, and the function of the theories
“historical and philosophical accuracy of rep- reported. The author proposes that in science te-
resentations of science content and its develop- aching, the use of history science does not only
ment”, and (3) “accuracy and/or extent of repre- contribute to the understanding of the NOS, but
sentation of specific aspects or domains of NOS it also facilitates enjoyment of teaching during
drawn from reform documents”. The current stu- learning. Another study conducted by Şendur et
dy is in the second category which explores the al. (2017) to see the effects of a long term course
effects of content presentation on NOS under- comprised of instructions, through which HPS
standing within the lenses of history and philoso- instructed and discussed, on pre-service science
phy of science (hereafter HPS). Accordingly, this teachers’ conceptions of chemistry and chemists.
study aims to explore the effects of college-level Although their study does not aim to build a re-
general chemistry content prepared in the HPS lationship between the NOS and HPS, it can be
perspective on NOS understanding of pre-service said that the conceptions and understanding of
science teachers. The hypothesis is that a science chemistry as disciplinary science and chemists
content prepared in the perspective of HPS may as scientists could reflect a meta-understanding
implicitly lead to more appropriate NOS under- about the NOS and scientists.
standing for students. The novelty of this study However, most of those studies can be criti-
is to see how the content preparation in the HPS cized because presented the stories of most popu-
perspective may affect NOS understandings of lar and famous scientists and that situation seems
students. We attempt to create textbook content leading to view science that may seem developing
that can implicitly demonstrate aspects of NOS. and progressing on a chronological and procedu-
Yang et al. (2020) stated implicitly that represen- ral linear line. Yang et al. (2020) stated that tex-
tation of NOS can be “an important means of tbooks tended to focus on addressing one central
contextualizing NOS by linking the individual’s NOS idea in each historical episode, which me-
scientific knowledge” with the dynamics of hu- ans that diverse NOS aspects are not represented
man society surrounding the science. in a holistic and appropriate manner. Therefore,
454 Z. Ayık and B. Coştu / JPII 9 (3) (2020) 451-464

for students’ richer understanding of NOS, tex- vel textbooks and foregrounded discipline-speci-
tbooks should embrace NOS aspects that are as fic topics drawn from the chemical and physical
diverse as possible and reveal their “dynamic in- sciences, including atomic structure (Niaz, 1998;
terrelations” within each historical episode. We Niaz & Coştu, 2009) and the photoelectric effect
interpret this idea as the progress of science that (Niaz et al., 2010). In this matter, for example,
is a continuous and complex process and even if Niaz & Maza (2011) analyzed and evaluated 75
the historical details are demonstrated, it needs college-level general chemistry textbooks which
philosophical guidance to interpret and link the are published in the United States for their rep-
historical happenings. Lakatos (1980) stated that resentations of NOS. Results showed that the
the reconstruction of history needs philosophical majority of textbooks do not adequately address
guidelines. According to Lakatos, to understand aspects of NOS. McDonald & Abd-El-Khalick
the progress of science appropriately, for examp- (2017) reported that “overall, these studies gene-
le, the rivalry between different scientific theo- rally found that science textbooks either ignored
ries, models, and scientists must be included in or lacked coherent history and philosophy frame-
the demonstration of HOS. Otherwise, the prog- works to address the development of theories and
ress of science can be conceived as “a fresh line” constructs, or help students appreciate the role
in which in certain times certain people built of competing frameworks in scientific progress”.
scientific knowledge. The role of observations, Among other scholars who have utilized the HPS
experiments, presuppositions of scientists, and perspective to examine science textbook content
experimental data in inventions of theories can are, Gerick & Hagberg (2010). It has been found
be understood if the rivalry between opponent that the examined textbooks are weak to repre-
theories is discussed and why the acknowledged sent the adequate aspects of NOS and none of
theory is supported. the examined chapters are provided in their histo-
In parallel, in the context of this study, the rical context. Gericke & Hagberg (2010) explored
textbook is investigated not only in the perspecti- the use of multiple historical models for gene fun-
ve of historical details but also tend to embrace ction in upper secondary biology and chemistry
a philosophical guideline argued by Lakatos to textbooks. Findings demonstrated that the role of
not embed the historical details into the content various models is absent in the textbooks which
presentation but embed the content into the his- cause textbooks to show an inductivist image of
torical development of the scientific knowledge. science and progress of science.
HOS may eligibly demonstrate “methodological
and conceptual” progress of other disciplines Theoretical Framework of the Study
while philosophers of science, who think the con- HPS is more than a collection of stories
nections between HPS has been fulfilled, consider or histories of experiments. HPS is a notion that
historians of science as limiting the connection is built on a philosophical base, and this might
of the sides. Therefore, we should look back on create an image of science and epistemology of
historical details from a philosophical perspecti- scientific knowledge. Kant expresses that “philo-
ve or view. Moreover, Monk & Osborne (1997) sophy of science is empty without HOS and HOS
argued that “teaching of science content through is blind without philosophy of science”. This fa-
HPS has a positive contribution in constructing mous quote figured out that a reconstruction of
conception and understanding of the NOS and it HOS needed philosophical guidelines (Lakatos,
must be planned as a pivoting factor in the curri- 1980). According to Lakatos (1980), the “philo-
culum”. They claim that HPS is an effective fac- sophy of science provides normative methodolo-
tor to enhance the understanding and conception gies in terms of which the historian reconstructs
of the NOS because (1) “historical thinking often ‘internal history’ and thereby provides a rational
parallels with their own”, (2) “the now accepted explanation of the growth of objective knowled-
scientific idea was often strongly opposed for ge” and each of those methodologies interprets
similar reasons to those proposed by students”, HOS differently, up to their normative values
(3) “because it highlights the contrast between and priorities. Lakatos also called those metho-
thinking then, and now, bringing into a sharper dologies “logic of discovery”. Owing to this as-
focus of nature and achievement of our current sumption we can infer that for the implication
conceptions”. for education and teaching NOS through HPS,
Pioneering and earlier studies that utilized which philosophical guide we use through HPS
the HPS perspective to examine textbook content, will yield a different image of science and episte-
are mainly led by Mansoor Niaz and his collea- mological products. In this study, we embrace La-
gues. Those studies examined mostly college-le- katos’ “Methodology of Scientific Research Pro-
 Z. Ayık and B. Coştu / JPII 9 (3) (2020) 451-464
455

grams” as a philosophical guide to look back on majority of the textbooks represented science
the history of Thomson, Rutherford, and Bohr and scientific progress as positivist-inductivist,
atom theories. Schwab’s (1962) “rhetoric of conclusions”. In
The main goal of this study is to test the such a content presentation, there may be lots of
effect of a content presentation prepared based epistemological problems, handicaps, and a lack
on the Lakatosian perspective of HPS on the pre- of portrayal of the NOS.
service science teachers’ understanding of the The role of science textbooks in the teach-
NOS and the progress of science. In the Laka- ing of the NOS seems neglected in a comparison
tosian perspective, NOS characterization of Niaz with teaching and learning activities. In the litera-
(2009) and Niaz & Arelys (2011) were employed. ture, although there are many studies on textbook
Those characteristics of the NOS are (1) “Scien- analyses and how they must be, there seems no
tific knowledge relies heavily, but not entirely, on such a textbook or a chapter prepared to measure
observation, experimental evidence, rational ar- the effect of it on the understanding of the natu-
guments, and skepticism.” (2) “Observations are re of science. Monk & Osborne (1997) support
theory-laden.” (3) “Science is tentative/fallible.” this claim as they report that even textbooks in-
(4) “There is no one way to do science and hence cluding HOS, yet, they “only passing reference
no universal step-by-step scientific method can to the HOS” and “such textbooks are written to
be followed.” (5). “Scientific progress is charac- provide students with the popular, contemporary,
terized by competition among opposite theories.” cleaned-up, and pre-justified accounts of the be-
(6) “Different scientists can interpret the same havior of the natural world”. We aim to cover up
experimental data in more than one way.” (7) the gap in the literature as mentioned above and
“Development of scientific theories at times is conducted our study in this direction. The main
based on inconsistent foundations.” (8) “Scien- limitation of the study is restricting the content
tists require accurate record-keeping, peer review, into one topic which is the atomic structure. In
and replicability”. (9) “Scientists are creative and the light of the assumptions so far, the research
often resort to imagination and speculation.” (10) question is “Does the content representation of
“Scientific ideas are affected by their social and Thomson, Rutherford, and Bohr atom theories
historical milieu.” (Niaz, 2009). In this regard, in college-level general chemistry textbooks in
we assume that the content presentation of the Lakatosian HPS perspective have an affirmative
textbook chapter is expected to portray those cha- effect in NOS understandings of sophomore pre-
racteristics of the NOS implicitly. service science teachers?”
In specific, we focus on how the atom
theories of Thomson, Rutherford, and Bohr are METHODS
demonstrated regarding content and historical
progress. Niaz (1998) developed eight criteria This reserach is aimed to see whether a tex-
(See table 1) that specify what should be included tbook content prepared in the perspective of HPS
in chemistry textbooks to delineate philosophy enhances the NOS views of participants or not.
and HOS congruent to the Lakatosian perspecti- Therefore, the intervention is expected to crea-
ve. We assume that if those criteria are integrated te effects on participants’ views about the NOS.
into science content, it helps to demonstrate the Cook & Campbell (1976) defined a quasi-expe-
characteristics of NOS which is mentioned by rimental study as “the application of an experi-
Niaz & Coştu (2009) and Niaz & Arelys (2011). mental model of analysis and interpretation to
The criteria do not compromise the testing fac- bodies of data not meeting the full requirements
tors; instead, they are part of actual historical of experimental control because experimental
progress and development of the content and so units are not assigned at random to at least two
that they reflect the dialectic Lakatosian philoso- “treatment” conditions”. Accordingly, the design
phy of science and portray the image of science is proper for social experimentation which con-
in the framework of the philosophy. According sists of the planned intervention. Since the study
to Niaz & Arelys (2011), the degree or inclusi- explores the effect(s) of the learning experien-
on amount of the chapter content has a deciding ce of a group of people who are separated into
power of showing the characteristics of the NOS two groups as experimental and control groups,
and scientific practice as stated originally by Niaz pure randomization cannot be achieved, thus the
(2016). Moreover, Rodriguez & Niaz (2004), study contained pre-test and post-test processes.
Niaz & Coştu (2009), and Niaz & Arelys (2011) Hence, a quasi-experimental design was emp-
analyzed college-level general chemistry and ge- loyed. Two researchers firstly prepared atomic
neral physics textbooks. Results showed that the structure content in the HPS perspective. One of
456 Z. Ayık and B. Coştu / JPII 9 (3) (2020) 451-464

the authors of this paper is an experienced expert tarily accepted to participate in all phases of the
in the field of teaching chemistry and chemistry study. Half of the participants were randomly
education research. Then volunteer participants chosen as the experimental group and others as
were determined. All participants firstly respon- a control group.
ded to the NOS survey. Afterward, participants After post-test and quantitative data analy-
were randomly divided into two groups as cont- sis, five participants from the experimental group
rol and experimental group which was provided were chosen for a semi-structured interview. Tho-
with the intervention. The intervention lasted in se five participants were selected intentionally ac-
six weeks. Two weeks after the intervention both cording to the highest number of changes from
control and experimental groups were taken with pre-test to post-test. In other words, participants
the same NOS survey. in the experiment group were analyzed indivi-
dually, and the first five of them had the greatest
Participants and Sampling number of changes in categorical answers (for
34 sophomore pre-service science teachers example from a Positivist to a Transitional ans-
voluntarily participated in the study. Participants wer or vice versa). Both groups had taken pre-test
have had a general chemistry course in the first and post-test. The experimental group took part
year and in that course, a general chemistry tex- in the intervention phase whereas the control
tbook of Bağ (2006) used and that textbook was group did not. The experimental group partici-
analyzed by a previous study of Niaz & Coştu pants were served with copies of content prepa-
(2009) according to eight criteria of Niaz (1998) red from the perspective of HPS or the criteria
and found as weak to portray characteristics of prepared by Niaz (1998). The content is genera-
the NOS and progress of science. A meeting with ted with the modification of the criteria expressed
41 sophomore pre-service science teachers before below. Emphasized HPS perspectives in the text
the pre-test was held and participants were asked and corresponding NOS characterizations impli-
about their participation and 34 of them volun- citly posed by the text are given below in Table 1.
Table 1. Integrated HPS Perspectives in the Content and Corresponding NOS Characterization
Focused Content in HPS Perspective in the Text
Aimed NOS Characterizations in the Text
Niaz’s (1998) Eight Criteria Emphasized in the Content
1 T1— “Cathode rays as charged particles or waves in the Observations are theory laden.
ether.” There is no one way to do science and hence
This criterion was developed for emphasizing the aim no universal step-by-step scientific method can
of Thomson’s experiment. The criterion points out that be followed.
Thomson’s aim was not to develop an atom model, it Different scientists can interpret the same ex-
was to respond the controversy on the nature of cathode perimental data in more than one way.
rays whether they are charged particles in the cathode
tubes or waves in the ether.
2 T2— “Determination of mass-to-charge ratio to decide Scientific knowledge relies heavily, but not en-
whether cathode rays were ions or a tirely, on observation, experimental evidence,
universal charged particle.” rational arguments, and skepticism.
This criterion was developed for emphasizing the actual Scientists are creative and often resort to imagi-
aim of Thomson in determination mass-to-charge ratio. nation and speculation.
The criterion points out that the aim of the determina-
tion of the ratio was not to find its value, but to decide
whether they are universal particles. This determination
was crucial to conclude that the particles are contained
in all kind of matter.
3 R1— “Nuclear atom.” Science is tentative/fallible.
The experiments on alpha particles by Rutherford and Different scientists can interpret the same ex-
his colleagues and the atom model by them had a rival perimental data in more than one way.
atom theory namely Thomson’s plum-pudding model. Observations are theory laden.
The criterion focuses on that rivalry and suggests dem- Scientific progress is characterized by competi-
onstrating how the rivalry was and how the Rutherford tion among rival theories.
model won the rivalry. Especially, the criterion empha-
sizes progress of science and the roles of theories and
experiments in scientific progress.
 Z. Ayık and B. Coştu / JPII 9 (3) (2020) 451-464
457

4 R2— “Probability of large deflections is exceedingly Science is tentative/fallible.

small as the atom is the seat of an intense electric field”. Scientific knowledge relies heavily, but not en-
The experiments done with alpha particles showed led tirely, on observation, experimental evidence,
Rutherford and his team make an interpretation that rational arguments, and skepticism.
atom has an intense electric field in the center. This idea
was supported by probability calculations, because the
number of large deflection of rays was (1 in 20000 par-
ticles). The criterion focuses on the idea behind the Ruth-
erford atom model.
5 R3— “Single/compound scattering of alpha particles.” Scientific knowledge relies heavily, but not en-
The reason of deflection of alpha particles was grounded tirely, on observation, experimental evidence,
on different bases by Thomson and his colleagues and rational arguments, and skepticism.
Rutherford and his colleagues. To support his theory, Scientists are creative and often resort to imagi-
Thomson advocated compound scattering according to nation and speculation.
which the right deflection was due to a sum of small de- Scientific ideas are affected by their social and
flections whereas Rutherford supported single scattering historical milieu.
according to which a single scattering leads the deflec- Scientists require accurate record keeping, peer
tion of alpha particles. The winner of this rivalry was review and replicability.
determined by a mathematical calculations and Ruther-
ford showed mathematically that compound scattering is
impossible because the angle of deflections is larger than
900. This criterion focuses on the dispute between single
and compound scattering models and the reason why the
single scattering model became winner.

6 B1— “Paradoxical stability of the Rutherford model of Scientific ideas are affected by their social and
the atom.” historical milieu.
This criterion emphasizes the purpose of Bohr in terms Different scientists can interpret the same ex-
of his efforts that resulted in a new atom theory. It is perimental data in more than one way.
highlighted that the aim of Bohr was not develop a new
atom theory, but to explain the paradoxical stability of
Rutherford atom model.

7 B2— “Explanation of the hydrogen line spectrum.” Science is tentative/fallible.

This criterion focuses on Bohr’s explanation of the hy- There is no one way to do science and hence
drogen line spectrum. Many textbooks mention in a no universal step-by-step scientific method can
historical perspective that Bohr firstly used experimental be followed.
data as hydrogen line spectrum and Balmer and Paschen
formulas and then published his atom theory. This fact Scientists require accurate record keeping, peer
causes a positivist understanding about science and its review and replicability.
progress, because it depicts that a positivist line in which
an experimental data (Balmer’s data), and Bohr experi-
ments for verification and finally postulating a theory.
However, HOS demonstrates that Bohr did not even hear
and had no idea about the Balmer and Paschen series.
This situation shows that, science does not progress in a
positivist approach.
8 B3— “Deep philosophical chasm.” Development of scientific theories at times is
based on inconsistent foundations
Bohr atom theory’s theoretical principle is a mixture of
classical electrodynamics and modern physics. Niaz ex- Scientists are creative and often resort to imagi-
plains this situation as “a deep philosophical chasm”, de- nation and speculation.
fines as a theory building on different bases and clarifies
the aim of the criteria as showing “how scientists, when
faced with difficulties, often resort to such contradictory
“grafts”.
458 Z. Ayık and B. Coştu / JPII 9 (3) (2020) 451-464

Two weeks after the pre-test, the interven- information or intervention. While the experi-
tion phase was started. The intervention process mental group was engaged in intervention, the
consisted of six lessons that per two of which control group continued their routines of usual
were allocated for each atom theory. Totally, courses of their department and participated to
there was an eight weeks long gap between the post-test.
pre- and post-tests that this time-gap is supposed
to be enough to diminish the familiarity to items Data Collection and Instrument
of the survey. In the lessons, the experimental NOS Survey
group was given copies of the chapter of the ato- To reveal the views of pre-service science
mic structure which was prepared according to teachers’ understanding of the NOS and scienti-
the eight criteria determined previously by Niaz fic progress, a questionnaire as a survey was used.
(2009). Participants were suggested to read the The questionnaire was used to reveal and collect
content before coming to lessons and discussed views of participants on domain-general content
it in the classroom. For each of the atom models, knowledge about the NOS and the progress of
there were two lessons executed. The main and science. In this study, NOS characterizations of
crucial role of the instructor in the lessons was to Niaz (2009) were modified to the questionnaire
eliminate unclear and unknown points especially and validated by an expert who studies on NOS,
about terminology, concepts, and methodological HPS, and science education. Items, target aspect
processes, and create a discussion climate during of the NOS, and corresponding categorical views
lessons. The control group was not given further are demonstrated in Table 2.
Table 2. Item, Content, and Corresponding Categories of the Test Instrument
Item Content Corresponding
Category*
Science, finds temporary The ideas about tentativeness of scientific knowledge Agree →L
solutions to problems were explored. Views of participants about tentative- No Idea → T
(Item 1). ness of science and scientific knowledge imply episte- Not agree → P
mological understandings of them.

Presuppositions of scientists in- This item aims to explore views about scientists are Agree →L
fluence their researches subjective as they design an experiment or develop a No Idea → T
(Item 2). theory. Their personal stances in terms of personal Not agree → P
beliefs, feelings or avid aims have an effect on their
studies or researches. This view reflects that science is
a human activity not a system of a mechanical entity.

Imagination of scientists and This item explores that scientific experiments, theo- Agree →L
their creativity influence their ries or laws are products of a human and they are not No Idea → T
researches discovered in the nature, they are invented by scien- Not agree → P
(Item 3) tists.

There is a difference between sci- This item explores epistemological beliefs of partici- Agree →L
entific theory and scientific law pants whether they have a view about the difference No Idea → T
(Item 4). between a scientific theory and a scientific law. Not agree → P

Scientific experiments are gener- This item asks for if scientists’ previous knowledge, Agree →P
ally done just to see their results studies or their adhesion to a certain theoretical No Idea → T
without any prediction before framework accepted by a scientific community or, by Not agree → L
them (Item 5). the definition of Kuhn, their loyalty of a paradigm, or
, by Lakatosian terminology, their positions in a re-
search program affects when they design and conduct
an experiment.

Different scientists can have dif- This item tries to reveal the views about different sci- Agree →L
ferent ideas in front of same ex- entists’ stances and reflections in front of same ex- No Idea → T
perimental data (Item 6). perimental data as they have properties and factors Not agree → P
mentioned in the item 5.
 Z. Ayık and B. Coştu / JPII 9 (3) (2020) 451-464
459

An experimental data can refute This item explores philosophical and methodological Agree →P
a scientific theory (Item 7). stances about refutations and acceptations of theo- No Idea → T
ries. Not agree → L

Science progresses through sci- This item is to reveal the thoughts about scientific Agree →P
entific experiments (Item 8). progress. According to Lakatos science progresses No Idea → T
through progressive problem shifts in scientific theo- Not agree → L
ries, whereas the positivist view considers it progress-
es with new experimental data and methodologic de-
velopments.
Scientific theories can be found According to positivist view, scientific theories are Agree →L
on inconsistent bases (Item 9). constructed on consistent and parallel bases, whereas No Idea → T
Lakatosian view admits that scientific theories can Not agree → P
base on inconsistent bases and Lakatos defends this
view as giving the Bohr atom theory example. Bohr
atom theory is constructed on classical Maxwellian
theory and modern quantum theory.
Science progresses through ri- This item poses an alternative situation to item 8. Ac- Agree →L
valry between different scientific cording to Lakatosian theory in the progress of sci- No Idea → T
theories. ence theories are the main factors. Lakatos emphasiz- Not agree → P
(Item 10). es that an experimental data can contradict a what a
theory assumes but this data cannot refute the theory
and that theory is still accepted. If a new theory or an-
other existing theory explains the new experimental
data, it becomes accepted and refutes existing unsuc-
cessful theory. This means that rivalry between theo-
ries determines the progress in science.

* L refers to “Lakatosian”, P refers to “Positivist”, and T refers to “Transitional”.

The effects of the intervention were ex- Participant Interviews

pected to result in changes in those categorical Since the test has close-ended responses,
responses, also in philosophical and epistemo- an individual interview with five participants
logical views about the NOS. Participant res- from the experimental group was conducted to
ponses/views were classified according to the deeply understand the background factors. After
procedure developed by Blanco & Niaz (1997). the post-test, five participants in the experimen-
The categorization procedure of the first item in tal group were chosen for an interview. The se-
the survey is given below as an illustration of the lection of five participants was done according
whole categorization process. to the procedure of purposive sampling. In this
Positivist Views: The responses in this clas- aim, participants who had the greatest change in
sification portrays “experimental observation, categorical answers (the change was considered
demonstration and description of an absolute from Positivist to Lakatosian) were asked to par-
reality that has little to do with the hypotheses ticipate to interview voluntarily. In the interview,
and theoretical framework of the scientist” (Niaz each participant was asked for each question in
& Coştu, 2009). The classification was made ac- which the interviewee changed previously given
cording to the study of Lakatos (1980). responses or views.
Transitional Views: Blanco & Niaz (1997)
characterizes this type of response having “a Data Analysis
partial understanding concerning the existence of The survey revealing categorical views
alternative /competing models for explaining the about the NOS provided two types of informati-
experimental observations and that no knowledge on. Firstly, changes in individual responses from
is ever absolutely established”. pre-test to post-test for both control and experi-
Lakatosian Views: This class of responses mental group. Secondly, difference in frequencies
shows and includes “conflicting frameworks, of given categorical responses. In the study, the
based on processes that require the elaboration of independent variable was the reading material
opposite hypotheses and their evaluation in the prepared from the perspective of HPS and the
light of new evidence” and the classification was dependent variable was the view about the NOS.
made according to the study of Lakatos (1980). Therefore, frequencies of categorical answers
460 Z. Ayık and B. Coştu / JPII 9 (3) (2020) 451-464

were given before intervention and after interven- intervention. Data gathered through interviews
tion for each item. The quantitative analysis pro- was used to interpret results gathered through the
cedure was done in two ways. Firstly, frequency survey.
analysis and comparison were done to see the si-
tuations before the intervention and after for both RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
groups (Table 2 and Table 3). Because we were
dealing with changes in frequencies of categori- Survey Findings
cal responses in two different cases (before and Data obtained from the survey was ana-
after intervention), the non-parametric chi-square lyzed separately regarding control and experi-
test was used to check whether there occurred a mental groups. In the pre-test for the Control
significant difference from pre-test to post-test. Group (see Table 3), 98 (57,7 %) out of 170 total
Chi-square testing was done in SPSS.22 for each answers were Lakatosian (L), 45 (26,4 %) Positiv-
item from the survey and the test was done for ist (P), and 27 (15,9 %) Transitional (T) responses
both the control and experimental group. The- were obtained. The post-test results showed that
Chi-square test results were considered as strong there were 99 (58,2%) Lakatosian, 48 (28,2%)
inferences to see for which item of the survey sig- positivist responses, and 23 (13,6%) transitional
nificant change takes place due to the effect of the responses given.

Table 3. Control Group Responses of Pre-test and Post-test Items

Lakatosian Positivist Transitional
Items
Test

Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test

f % f % f % f % f % f %
1 12 71 9 53 4 24 8 47 1 6 0 0
2 11 65 12 71 0 0 1 6 6 35 4 24
3 14 82 15 88 3 18 2 12 0 0 0 0
4 16 94 15 88 0 0 0 0 1 6 2 12
5 13 77 12 71 1 6 2 12 3 18 3 18
6 17 100 16 94 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0
7 0 0,0 2 12 17 100 14 82 0 0 1 6
8 0 0,0 0 0 13 77 15 88 4 24 2 12
9 9 53 9 53 3 18 3 18 5 29 5 29
10 6 35 9 53 4 24 2 12 7 41 6 35

In a comparison of the control group’s to 6. While the rise in the number of Lakatosian
pre-test and post-test results, there was no a sig- answers in the control group was from 57,7% to
nificant change in the percentages and number 58,2% and the rise in the experimental group was
of given response categories. The biggest change from 53,5% to 74,1%. As the control group’s pre-
was not more than 2%. In a comparison pre-test test and post-test result showed that there seems
results of the control group and experimental no other factor that may influence the views
group, there seem no significant difference bet- of participants about the NOS and progress of
ween the pre-test results of both groups, however, science in the time elapse of intervention, this
the control group was better about % 4 in Lakato- study assumes that the total rise of about 20% in
sian answers. This means that the control group the number of Lakatosian answers delineates the
was slightly better than the experimental group in effect of the intervention.
the pre-test. To see the changes in views regarding each
Experimental group results (Table 4) de- item, each item’s results was analyzed individual-
monstrate that the Lakatosian answer increased ly. Results showed that the highest changes were
from 91 to 126 in pre-test and post-test, respecti- seen from Positivist to Lakatosian responses and
vely. The 53,5% percentage raised to 74,1% per- from Transitional to Lakatosian responses. The
centage in terms of Lakatosian answers and the highest change of percentage was in item-7 from
Positivist answers decreased from the number of the Positivist to Lakatosian view. The Chi-square
63 (36,5%) to 22 (22,4). There was also a decrease results showed that there was no significant dif-
in the number of Transitional answers from 17 ference in the results of all items in the control
 Z. Ayık and B. Coştu / JPII 9 (3) (2020) 451-464
461

group. This finding supports the hypothesis that the Lakatosian responses in item-1 raised from
posits the change in the views of the control group 35,3% to 64,7%, in item-3 raised 94,1 % to100%,
happened in the time elapse of intervention can in item-4 raised from 88,2% to 100%, in item- 5
be underestimated. In the tables of the control raised from 70,6 to 82,4%, in item-6 raised from
group, there seems rises and decreases. The per- 82,4% to 100%, in item-9, raised from 41,2% to
centage of Lakatosian answers slightly raised in 70,6%. However, in item-8 there was no rise and
items 2, 3, and 4, and in item-10 the percentage no change in the number and so the percentage of
raised from 35,3% to 52,9%. In items 4, 5, and 6 Lakatosian answers, and no one gave any Lakato-
there were slight decreases in the percentages of sian answer to item-8. The overall results showed
Lakatosian answers, but there was a sharp dec- that there happened roughly 20-30 % changes in
rease in item-1 that was from 70, 6% to 52,9 %. the responses toward the Lakatosian category
In the results of item 7, 8, and 9 there seemed no and then we can claim that our hypothesis, which
change in the percentages of Lakatosian answers. is the content preparation of science textbooks
For the experimental group, chi-square in the HPS perspective may contribute in develo-
test results showed that there were significant ping student understanding of NOS, is positively
differences in the responses of item-2, item-7, answered.
and item-10, respectively. In other words, 3 of 10 In Table 4, survey findings of experimen-
items had a significant difference between pre-test tal group are presented. Changes from pre-test to
and post-test. This means that statistical data veri- post-test in the categorical views are demonstra-
fies that there are significant changes in the views ted and the effects of the intervention are visible
of experimental group participants. Moreover, as quantitative change of categorical views.

Table 4. Experimental Group Response Frequencies and Percentages of Pre-test and Post-test Items
Lakatosian Positivist Transitional
Items
Test

Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test

f % f % f % f % f % F %
1 6 35 11 65 11 65 5 29 0 0 1 6
2 12 71 16 94 5 29 0 0 0 0 1 6
3 16 94 17 100 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0
4 15 88 17 100 1 6 0 0 1 6 0 0
5 12 71 14 82 1 6 2 12 4 24 1 6
6 14 82 17 100 3 18 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 2 12 8 47 15 88 9 53 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 16 94 17 100 1 6 0 0
9 7 41 12 71 4 24 2 12 6 35 3 18
10 7 41 14 82 6 35 3 18 4 24 0 0

Interview Episodes replied in the pre-test as “I do not agree” and in

Qualitative data gathered from the semi- the post-test, you changed your view in which you
structured interview with five participants in the declared that you accept. What was the reason
experimental group that demonstrated empirical that made you change your view?
support for the changes in participants’ views. EP-1: Because at the beginning there was
This poses a relation between changes in views the Dalton atom model, and then the Thomson
and the intervention. Furthermore, some episo- atom model was postulated, after that, the Rut-
des are noted from the interview for firstly the herford atom model emerged. It means that they
items possessing significant change and other are temporary, and they find temporary solutions.
items possessing an increase in the number of La- Interviewer: Why did not you accept it at
katosian responses. The participants were coded the beginning?
as EP (experimental group participants) in the in- EP-1: I thought that science always finds
terview episodes. An anecdote of the interview is absolute and super solutions.
given below. Interviewer: For the sixth item, “Different
Interviewer: For the first item, “Science, scientists can have different ideas in front of the
finds temporary solutions to problems”, you same experimental data”, you replied in the pre-
462 Z. Ayık and B. Coştu / JPII 9 (3) (2020) 451-464

test as “I do not agree” and in the post-test, you topic in the HPS perspective. Results demonstrate
changed your view in which you declared that that participants who are given with intervention
you accept. What was the reason that made you showed positive changes in NOS views. There ob-
change your view? served a statically significant difference between
EP-11: Yes. Because the experimental data pre-test and post-test results of 3 of 10 items. This
they got was the same, but they thought different- change is seen from the positivist NOS view to
ly. the Lakatosian NOS view and from a neutral
Interviewer: Who you think they are? Can NOS view to the Lakatosian NOS view. This
give an example, in the context of our lessons? result seems sufficient to answer our research
EP-11: The experiments done by question. Positive effects take place by reading
Rutherford and the results they got. They studied science content on the promotion of pre-service
the same experiment but reached different results. science teachers’ understanding of the NOS and
Yes, Thomson and Rutherford had the same the assumption was in parallel with the previous
experiment but thought differently. studies (Niaz, 1998). Content should be prepared
Interviewer: You mean that they have some from the perspective of HPS. In other words, HPS
experimental data but different interpretations, could be used as a perspective in the preparation
right? of science textbooks. Yet, as Lakatos (1980) puts
EP-11: Yes. For example, one of them forth that HOS is a reconstruction of history and
thought the “plum-pudding model” and the other it needs a philosophical point of view, depending
thought “nuclear model”. on which lens of the philosophy a scientist looks
In the data, in presented episodes, partici- back to the history, his interpretations and prio-
pants’ views about given items also seem to be rities will be different. Therefore, we claim that
affected by the intervention. Because this study presenting historical details is not a mere criterion
engages in the content presentation to affect the of the HPS perspective, the content may be vie-
views about the NOS in a limited time, short and wed in the logic of development and progress of
limited open-ended responses were taken in the scientific knowledge with the contributors.
interview. However, although they are short and Quantitative findings of the study revealed
not deep, their relationship between the content that, in the experimental group, a content prepa-
presentations, so with the intervention, seems red in the perspective of HPS has a positive effect
bare. on the understanding of the NOS and progress
CONCLUSION of science because the descriptive results yielded
more significant changes in the results of the ex-
Teaching NOS is seen as an important goal perimental group, while no significant change
of science education (Niaz & Coştu, 2009; Niaz, was observed in the results of the control group.
2016; McDonald & Abd-El-Khalick, 2017), and That we found similar results with Seung et al.
demonstration of scientific knowledge in tex- (2009) who investigated the effect of the “Science
tbooks has a crucial role in this goal (McDonald, Methods” course through which topics of philo-
2017; Yang et al., 2020). Textbooks build a lear- sophy of science handled and pre-service scien-
ning experience in a one-sided interaction and ce teachers’ understandings of the NOS. They
non-interactive ways but social because of the reported that textbooks should portray charac-
communication between the reader and the aut- teristics of science and scientific inquiry impli-
hor (Kloser, 2013; Patterson et al., 2017). Furt- citly with a complementary role to the teaching
hermore, the treasure of science has been trans- and learning activities. Furthermore, the study of
mitted mostly through written texts. Therefore, Abd El-Khalick et al. (2017) has a similar interest
a science student can open a science textbook in this study. They analyzed high school biology
written two-hundred years ago and can learn the and physics textbooks to see how they present the
scientific content through reading it. In the lights NOS according to the criteria they developed.
on such considerations, the importance and role Their analysis was to see how those textbooks
of science textbooks in the teaching of science, portray the “NOS aspects included the empirical,
and teaching of the NOS too, cannot be under- tentative, inferential, creative, and theory-laden”,
valued. the social dimension of the NOS and epistemo-
The hypothesis posited by this study is that logical nature of scientific laws and theories. Se-
if science textbook content is prepared in HPS condly, they investigated how much they present
perspectives they may promote NOS understan- the NOS regarding the author and the publisher.
dings of the pre-service science teacher. To test In other words, they wondered which factor is
this hypothesis, we presented an atomic structure more effective to present the NOS better. They
 Z. Ayık and B. Coştu / JPII 9 (3) (2020) 451-464
463

found that the “author” factor is more effective in Allchin, D. (2013). Teaching the Nature of Science. Per-
depicting the NOS in the science textbooks they spectives and Resources. St. Paul: Ships Education
analyzed. Press.
Furthermore, findings imply that the inter- Allchin, D. (2017). Beyond the consensus view: Whole
science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics
vention leads statistically significant differences
and Technology Education, 1(17), 18-26.
in the views about certain NOS aspects and qua- ACARA (2015). Australian Curriculum and Reporting
litative data makes us infer that, “the interven- Authority. Australian curriculum: Science F-10.
tion seems to help interviewees to give specific Sydney: Commonwealth of Australia.
examples from the HOS”. Firstly, the view of Bağ, H., (2006). Genel Kimya-I. Pegem A Yayıncılık,
“science is a human product” seemed to be en- Ankara.
hanced. Secondly, the idea, which lies in the core Blanco, R., & Niaz, M. (1997). Epistemological beliefs
of Lakatosian philosophy of science, “a scientific of students and teachers about the Nature of
theory can be refuted by another scientific theory science: from ‘baconian inductive ascent’ to the
‘irrelevance’ of scientific laws. Instructional Sci-
and if there is no another scientific theory that
ence, 3(25), 203-231.
can explain the natural phenomena, the current Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1976). The design
scientific theory stays valid even nature shows and conduct of true experiments and quasi-
contradictions toward it” seemed to be enhanced. experiments in field settings. In M. D. Dun-
Third, another view of Lakatosian philosophy of nette, Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
science which expresses that “progress of science Psychology (pp. 223-326). Goodyear Publishing
is not linear and is not always found on consis- Company.
tent bases” seemed to be enhanced. Presenting DiGiuseppe, M. (2014). Representing nature of sci-
the content from the perspective of HPS should ence in a science textbook: Exploring author-
editor-publisher interactions. International Jour-
not be giving historical detail besides the scien-
nal of Science Education, 36(7), 1061–1082.
tific content or equations. It may be considered Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about
as a guide to write and arrange the scientific con- explicitly teaching nature of science. Science &
tent, or it may be considered as a way to teach Education, 9(22), 2109-2139.
the scientific contents. It should be remembered Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing
that textbooks convey more than equations or in- the nature of science for science education. Dor-
formation about a certain discipline of science. drecht: Springer.
Therefore, they should be written in a strategy Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Ex-
concerning how will they reflect the characteris- amining the effect of teachers’ adaptations of
a middle school science inquiry‐oriented cur-
tics of science and the progress of it.
riculum unit on student learning. Journal of Re-
This study had an interest in the impor- search in Science Teaching, 48(2), 149-169.
tance of content presentation in science and Gericke, N. M., & Hagberg, M. (2010). Conceptual
chemistry textbooks and its relationship with an incoherence as a result of the use of multiple
understanding of the NOS. It supported the idea historical models in school textbooks. Research
that how the content in the science textbook is in Science Education, 40, 605–623.
prepared to influence readers’ understanding of Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance ap-
the NOS. Therefore, in the teaching of the NOS, proach to the nature of science for science edu-
textbooks have crucial roles in portraying charac- cation. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 591–607.
Kahveci, A. (2010). Quantitative analysis of science
teristics of the NOS. Based o the results of the
and chemistry textbooks for indicators of re-
study, it is recommended that there should be form: A complementary perspective. Interna-
paid more attention to science textbooks prepa- tional Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1495–
ration and specific recommendation is content 1519.
in science textbooks should be prepared from the Kampourakis, K. (2016). The “general aspects” con-
perspective of HPS. ceptualization as a pragmatic and effective
means to introducing students to nature of
REFERENCES science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
53(5), 667–682.
Abd El-Khalick, F., Myers, J. Y., Summers, R., Brun- Kloser, M. (2013). Exploring high school biology stu-
ner, J., Waight, N., Wahbeh, N., . . . Belarmino, dents’ engagement with more or less epistemo-
J. (2017). A longitudinal analysis of the extent logically considerate texts. Journal of Research in
and manner of representations of nature of sci- Science Teaching, 50(10), 1232–1257.
ence in U.S. high school biology and physics Lakatos, I. (1980). The methodology of scientific research
textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teach- programmes. Cambridge: Cambridge university
ing, 1(54), 82-120. press.
464 Z. Ayık and B. Coştu / JPII 9 (3) (2020) 451-464

Lin, H.-S. (1998). Promoting pre-service science teach- Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., &
ers’ understanding about the nature of science Duschl, R. (2003). What ‘Ideas-About-Science’
through history. Annual Meeting of the National Should be Taught in School Science? A Delphi
Association for Research in Science Teaching (p. 1). Study of the Expert Community. Journal of Re-
Sandago: CA. search in Science Teaching, 7(40), 692-720.
Lin, H.‐S., & Chen, C.‐C. (2002). Promoting preser- Park, W., Yang, S., & Song, J. (2019). When modern
vice chemistry teachers’ understanding about physics meets nature of science: The represen-
the nature of science through history. Journal tation of nature of science in general relativ-
of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 773-792. ity in new Korean physics textbooks. Science &
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10045 Education, 28(9-10), 1055-1083.
McDonald, C. V. (2017). Exploring representations of Patterson, A., Roman, D., Friend, M., Osborne, J., &
nature of science in Australian junior second- Donovan, B. (2017). Reading for meaning: The
ary school science textbooks: A case study of foundational knowledge every teacher of sci-
genetics. In C. V. McDonald & F. Abd-El-Khal- ence should have. International Journal of Science
ick (Eds.), Representations of nature of science in Education, 3(40), 1-17.
school science textbooks: A global perspective (pp. Pearl, J., & Mackenzie, D. (2018). The Book of Why:
98–117). London: Routledge. The New Science of Cause and Effect. Basic Books.
McDonald, C. V., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2017). Rep- Rodriguez, M. A., & Niaz, M. (2004). A reconstruc-
resentations of nature of science in school tion of structure of the atom and its implica-
science textbooks. In C. V. McDonald & F. tions for general physics textbooks: A history
Abd-El-Khalick (Eds.), Representations of nature and philosophy of science perspective. Journal
ofscience in school science textbooks: A global perspec- of Science Education and Technology, 3(13), 409-
tive (pp. 1–19). London: Routledge. 424.
Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the history Roseman, J. E., Stern, L., & Koppal, M. (2010). A
and philosophy of science on the curriculum: A method for analyzing the coherence of high
model for the development of pedagogy. Science school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in
Education, 4(81), 405-424. Science Teaching, 47(1), 47–70.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enqui-
K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting con- ry. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
cepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The Na- Şendur, G., Polat, M., & Kazancı, C. (2017). Does a
tional Academies Press. course on the history and philosophy of chem-
NGSS (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, istry have any effect on prospective chemistry
by states. Washington, DC: The National Acad- teachers’ perceptions? The case of chemistry
emies Press. and the chemist. Chemistry Education Research
Niaz, M. (1998). From cathode rays to alpha particles and Practice, 4(18), 601-629. doi:DOI: 10.1039/
to quantum of action: A rational reconstruc- C7RP00054E
tion of structure of the atom and its implica- Seung, E.-S., Bryan, L. A., & Nam, J.-H. (2009). Ko-
tions for chemistry textbooks. Science Education, rean pre-service teachers’ understanding about
5(82), 527-552. the nature of science (NOS). Journal of The
Niaz, M. (2009). Progressive transitions in chemistry Korean Association For Science Education, 3(29),
teachers’ understanding of nature of science 314-328.
based on historical controversies. Science & Edu- Vesterinen, V-M., Akesla, M., & Lavonen, J. (2013).
cation, 1(18), 43-65. Quantitative analysis of representations of
Niaz, M. (2016). History and philosophy of science as nature of science in Nordic upper secondary
a guide to understanding nature of science. Re- school textbooks using framework of analysis
vista Scientifica, 1(24), 7-16. based on philosophy of chemistry. Science &
Niaz, M., & Arelys, M. (2011). Nature of science in Education, 22, 1839–1855.
general chemistry textbooks. In Nature of Sci- Yang, S., Park, W., & Song, J. (2020). Representations
ence in General Chemistry Textbooks (pp. 1-37). of nature of science in new Korean science
Dordrecht: Springer. textbooks: The case of ‘scientific inquiry and
Niaz, M., & Coştu, B. (2009). Presentation of atomic experimentation’. In Science Education in the 21st
structure in Turkish general chemistry text- Century (pp. 19-35). Springer, Singapore.
books. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, Yustina, Y., Halim, L., & Mahadi, I. (2020). The Ef-
3(10), 233-240. fect of ’Fish Diversity’Book in Kampar District
Niaz, M., & Maza, A. (2011). Nature of science in general on the Learning Motivation and Obstacles of
chemistry textbooks. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kampar High School Students through Online
Springer. Learning during the COVID-19 Period. Jour-
Niaz, M., Klaassen, S., Mcmillan, B. A., & Metz, D. nal of Innovation in Educational and Cultural Re-
(2010). Leon Cooper’s Perspective on Teaching search, 1(1), 7-14.
Science: An Interview Study. Science & Educa-
tion, 1(19), 39-54.