preservice teachers’ views about nature of scientific knowledge development: an international...
Post on 15-May-2023
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
LING L. LIANG, SUFEN CHEN, XIAN CHEN, OSMAN NAFIZ KAYA,APRIL DEAN ADAMS, MONICA MACKLIN and JAZLIN EBENEZER
PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ VIEWS ABOUT NATUREOF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT:AN INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIVE STUDY
Received: 22 November 2007; Accepted: 24 June 2008
ABSTRACT. This article presents the findings of an international collaborativeinvestigation into preservice teachers’ views on the nature of scientific knowledgedevelopment with respect to six elements: observations and inferences, tentativeness,scientific theories and laws, social and cultural embeddedness, creativity and imagination,and scientific methods. A total of 640 preservice teachers, 209 from the United States, 212from China, and 219 from Turkey, participated in the study. The survey “StudentUnderstanding of Science and Scientific Inquiry (SUSSI)”, having a blend of Likert-typeitems and related open-ended questions, was used to gain a fuller understanding of thepreservice teachers’ views of the nature of scientific knowledge development. Across thethree countries, the participants demonstrated better understanding of the tentative NOSaspect but less understanding of the nature of and relationship between scientific theoriesand scientific laws. The Chinese sample scored highest on five of the six Likert sub-scales, the USA sample demonstrated more informed views on observation and inference,and the Turkish preservice teachers possessed relatively more traditional views in all sixNOS aspects. Conclusions and limitations of the present study as well as implications andrecommendations for future studies, are also discussed.
KEYWORDS: international collaborative study, nature of science, nature of scientificknowledge development, pre-service science teacher education
INTRODUCTION
Developing an appropriate understanding of nature of science (NOS) is aworldwide thrust in school science education that aims to developstudents’ scientific literacy. In the United States, for instance, all leading
This material was based upon work supported by La Salle University, the National Science Foundation
grant (ESI-0455573) awarded to Northeastern State University, and the National Science Council grant
(NSC 952522S011001MY3) awarded to the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology. Any
opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in these materials are those of the
author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of La Salle University, the National Science Foundation,
or the National Science Council.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (2009) 7: 987Y1012# National Science Council, Taiwan 2008
reform-based documents including the Benchmarks for Science Literacy(American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993),Science for All Americans (AAAS, 1990), and the National ScienceEducation Standards (National Research Council, 1996), advocate that allschool learners become scientific literate. This imperative implies thatschool science should develop students’ understanding of and ability todo science. Students should understand what science is and also aboutNOS: how science operates, how scientists work as a community, andhow society and scientific endeavors are interrelated. These aspects ofschool science are accepted by the international science education reformmovements regardless of cultures (McComas & Olson, 1998; TurkishMinistry of National Education, 2005; Ministry of Education of thePeople’s Republic of China, 2001).
More recently, the Science-Technology-Society (STS) education hasbeen integrated into a newly developed science education curriculum thataims to develop scientifically and technologically literate citizens inTurkey (Turkish Ministry of National Education, 2005; Yalvac, Tekkaya,Cakiroglu, & Kahyaoglu, 2007). Similarly, the Ministry of Education inChina initiated the basic education reforms for the 21st century in the1990s and established its national science education standards in 2001.Aiming at achieving scientific literacy for all, the Chinese reformedscience curricula emphasize the development of student understanding ofscientific knowledge, scientific inquiry and nature of science, as well asattitudes toward and values about science (Ministry of Education of thePeople’s Republic of China, 2001). Whereas the success of suchmovements requires concerted efforts within and outside of the scienceeducation community, teachers will certainly play a critical role inimplementing the reform curricula. It is our belief that in order to educateschool children to understand what science is and how scientificknowledge is developed, teachers themselves need to develop informedviews about NOS, and be able to translate their understanding intoclassroom practices (Hodson, 1991; Lederman, 2007; Matthews, 1988).The education of teachers is absolutely imperative.
This study is part of an international collaborative research effort thataims to enhance the K-16 student understanding of scientific contentknowledge and the nature of scientific knowledge development bycreating a platform for exchange of ideas on the development of bestpedagogical practices in the international science education community.Our project began with undergraduate teacher preparation programs, anda precursor to this endeavor was to identify preservice teachers’ views of
LING L. LIANG ET AL.988
the nature of scientific knowledge development in the United States ofAmerica, China, and Turkey. Given that the three distinct contextsrepresent a spectrum of Western and Eastern cultures and traditions (i.e.,Western culture—America; Eastern culture—China; and a combination ofWestern and Eastern cultures—Turkey), and that the three countries haveeducation systems and school curricula with different degrees ofcentralization (i.e., America—decentralized educational systems withoutnational standard school curricula; China and Turkey—highly centralizededucational systems with national standard curricula), we sought toidentify some common issues and to enhance our understanding of theimpact of school science with a Western tradition upon learners’ viewsabout NOS from a global perspective.
In connection with the reform efforts related to NOS, extensiveresearch studies have been conducted, and these reveal that students andteachers do not have informed views of NOS (Lederman, 1992; 2007).However, the claim was made based on most studies conducted in theUnited States and a few in other Western or non-Western countries (e.g.,Abd-El-Khalick & BouJaoude, 1997; Cheung & Toh, 1990; Lederman,1992; 2007; Lin & Chen, 2002; Ryan & Aikenhead, 1992). Internationalcomparative studies are scarce (e.g., Cobern, 1989). In China, Zhang,Krajcik, Sutherland, Wang, Wu, & Qian (2003) first attempted tocharacterize science teachers’ and teacher educators’ beliefs about NOSand science education several years ago. By using a Likert-scale NOSinstrument adapted from Pomeroy’s (1993) questionnaire, they found thatparticipating science teachers and teacher educators held both traditionaland contemporary views simultaneously. In the two recent NOS studiesconducted in Turkey, an adapted version of the “Views on Science-Technology-Society (VOSTS)” instrument was used to examine Turkishpreservice/in-service science teachers’ and high school students’ NOSviews (Bora, Aslan, & Cakiroglu, 2006; Erdogan, Cakiroglu, & Tekkaya,2006). Both studies found that Turkish science teachers and students tendto hold contemporary views about the tentativeness of scientificknowledge, but have naïve views on the definition of science, the natureof scientific models, and the properties of hypotheses, theories, and laws.However, due to the adoption of different instruments and methodologicalapproaches among the studies, it is difficult to compare findings acrossthe samples. In this study, we identified preservice teachers’ views ofNOS in three distinct contexts by using the Student Understanding ofScience and Scientific Inquiry (SUSSI) (Liang, Chen, Chen, Kaya,Adams, Macklin, & Ebenezer, 2008), a research tool that reflects a
NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT 989
shared frame of reference on scientific knowledge development. Thequestions guiding this study are as follows:
1) How do the preservice teachers in the three contexts view the nature ofscientific knowledge development?
2) To what extent are the preservice teachers’ views about nature ofscientific development similar or different in the three contexts?
The findings of our research contribute to the limited NOS literature oninternational comparative studies and provide science teacher educatorswith insights into further improvement of NOS teaching in science froman international perspective.
BACKGROUND
NOS usually refers to the philosophy and sociology of science (Ryan &Aikenhead, 1992). It concerns itself with what science is and justificationof scientific knowledge, as well as the sorts of attitude and approach ascientist has towards a scientific theory or investigation (Bird, 1998).Although philosophers, historians, sociologists, and science educatorscontinue debating NOS issues, recent studies have indicated the existenceof the consensus on the fundamental NOS aspects most relevant to K-12school science (McComas & Olson, 1998; Osborne, Collins, Ratcliffe,Millar, & Duschl, 2003).
In this project, we decided to focus on six essential, less controversialcomponents of the nature of scientific knowledge development: (a)scientific knowledge development involves a combination of observationsand inferences; (b) scientific knowledge is tentative and subject to change;(c) scientific theories and laws are functionally different types of scientificknowledge (d) scientific knowledge is socially and culturally embedded;(e) scientific knowledge development involves human imagination andcreativity; and (f) scientific knowledge development involves the use ofdiverse scientific methods. These aspects are addressed in the scienceeducation standards documents in the three participating countries, and havebeen widely discussed in the NOS empirical studies (e.g., AAAS, 1990;1993; Aikenhead & Ryan, 1992; Chen, 2006; Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick,Bell, & Schwartz, 2002; McComas & Olson, 1998; Désautels &Larochelle, 1998; National Science Teachers Association, 2000).
OBSERVATIONS AND INFERENCES. Science is based on bothobservations and inferences. Observations are statements that describe
LING L. LIANG ET AL.990
natural phenomena through the use of human senses (i.e., sight, hearing,touch, smell and taste) or technological tools. Inferences are interpreta-tions of those observations. Both observations and inferences are guidedby scientists’ prior knowledge and perspectives of current science.Multiple perspectives can lead to multiple valid inferences (Lederman,Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002). Previous studies reveal thatstudents and teachers are not well informed that observations andinferences in science are theory-laden. Some hold the misconception thatscientists would make the same observations and/or interpretations of thesame phenomenon because they are particularly objective (McComas,1998; Chen, 2006).
TENTATIVENESS. On the one hand, scientific knowledge is reliableand durable. On the other hand, scientific knowledge may be modified orreplaced in light of new evidence or the reconceptualization of existingevidence and knowledge (AAAS, 1990; National Science TeachersAssociation, 2000). The history of science reveals both evolutionaryand revolutionary changes (Popper, 1975/1998; Kuhn, 1970). However,some students and teachers view the substantive content of science asfixed and unchangeable. They tend to believe that the purpose of scien-tific research is to uncover truths or facts. Evidence accumulated carefullywill result in sure knowledge. Among those who believe that scientifictheories do change, they often perceive that new information discoveredby using new technology is the only way that stimulates such changes(Aikenhead & Ryan, 1992; Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick, & Lederman,2000; Rubba, 1977).
SCIENTIFIC THEORIES AND LAWS. Both scientific laws andtheories are subject to change. Scientific laws describe generalized rela-tionships or regularities in nature, while theories are well-substantiatedexplanations of certain aspects of the natural world. Theories do noteventually become laws but explain laws (Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick,Bell, & Schwartz, 2002; McComas, 1998). Many students and teachersbelieve that theories are unproven ideas but scientific laws are certain andproven. Moreover, they believe that scientific theories, with constanttesting and confirmation, finally mature into laws (Aikenhead & Ryan,1992; McComas, 1998).
SOCIAL AND CULTURAL EMBEDDEDNESS. Scientific knowledgeaims to be general and universal. As a human endeavor, science isinfluenced by the society and culture in which it is practiced. In other
NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT 991
words, what and how science is conducted and accepted are determinedby cultural values and expectations. Many students and teachers perceivescience as a search for universal truth or facts, which is independent ofsociety or culture (McComas, 1998).
HUMAN IMAGINATION AND CREATIVITY. Science is a blend oflogic and imagination. Scientific concepts do not emerge automaticallyfrom data or from any amount of analysis alone. Scientists use theirimagination and creativity throughout their scientific investigations,including creating hypotheses, inventing theories to explain how theworld works, making predictions, and finding ways to test their ideas(AAAS, 1990; National Science Teachers Association, 2000).
Many students and teachers do not fully understand the role of humanimagination and creativity in generating scientific knowledge. They tendto believe that “seeing is knowing.” Among those who do believe thatscientists use their imagination and creativity in science, some may referto scientists’ creativity in designing experiments or problem solving,rather than in the construction of theories and explanations (Aikenhead &Ryan, 1992; Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick, & Lederman, 2000).
DIVERSE SCIENTIFIC METHODS. There is no single universal step-by-step scientific method that all scientists follow. Scientists conductdifferent kinds of scientific investigations to answer different kinds ofquestions, such as mathematical deduction, observation, speculation,analysis, library investigation, and experimentation. Scientists’ use ofmethods can depend on their prior knowledge, creativity and theprevailing research paradigm under which they work (Kuhn, 1970).
Many students and teachers hold misconceptions about this aspect.They believe that scientists follow a universal step-by-step scientificmethod because the scientific method ensures valid and accurate results(Ryan & Aikenhead, 1992). Some students and teachers also think thatexperiments are the principal route to the development of scientificknowledge (McComas, 1998).
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CULTURE AND NATURE OF SCIENCE
Our study involves three distinct cultures—the American, the Chinese,and the Turkish. The literature has suggested that an individual’s views ofNOS are related to her/his culture, language, and worldview (e.g.,Sutherland & Dennick, 2002; Liu & Lederman, 2007). In the study
LING L. LIANG ET AL.992
conducted by Liu and Lederman in Taiwan (2007), for instance, it wasfound that the participating prospective teachers who recognized thelimitations of scientific knowledge, and accept the idea that scienceinvolves subjective and cultural components, were more likely toemphasize harmony with nature. In contrast, those who possessed narrowviews about the scientific enterprise and described science as close totechnology and as of materialistic benefit tended to provide ananthropocentric perspective regarding the human-nature relationships.The authors suggested that the science curriculum should incorporatesociocultural perspectives and nature of science components. The focus ofour study, however, is not to investigate how the preservice teachers’NOS views are influenced by their cultural values and worldviews. Giventhat the school science curricula reflect common strands of scientificknowledge and NOS in various countries, we aim to identify somecommon issues across the countries and focus our discussion on thepotential impact of the school science curricula on learners’ NOSviews.
METHODOLOGY
SAMPLE
This study involved three convenience samples, of which the researchershad an in-depth understanding of their curricula and learning context. Atotal of 640 preservice teachers from the United States, China, and Turkeyparticipated in the study. The samples represented three distinct sciencecurricula and cultural contexts. The US sample included 209 preserviceelementary teachers who were enrolled at two universities, one in a ruralarea and the other in an urban area. The participants were either majoringin elementary education (1st–8th), early childhood education (pre K-3rd)or special education (K-12). The Chinese sample consisted of 212preservice middle school science teachers who were respectively enrolledat two teacher preparation universities in the same city in China. InTurkey, 219 pre-service elementary and middle school science teachers(K-8) from a university were involved in the study.
INSTRUMENT
The Student Understanding of Science and Scientific Inquiry (SUSSI)was used to evaluate NOS views of the participating preservice teachers.
NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT 993
SUSSI focuses on six NOS themes: Observations and Inferences,Tentative Nature of Scientific Theories, Scientific Laws and Theories,Social and Cultural Influence on Science, Imagination and Creativity inScientific Investigations, and Methodology in Scientific Investigations.Each theme consists of four Likert-items, involving both the mostcommon naïve ideas and informed views, and an open-ended question(Liang, Chen, Chen, Kaya, Adams, Macklin, & Ebenezer, 2008; theinstrument is also available from the authors upon request). SUSSI wasfirst validated using the American sample and . then it was translated intoChinese and Turkish and administered to the Chinese and Turkishsamples. To ensure the accuracy and equivalence between translations, atleast two bilingual science education researchers (each with a PhD degreein science education and who were native Chinese or Turkish speakersfluent in English) independently translated into the respective languageand then discussed and resolved discrepancies in the translated forms.
During the data-analysis phase, a taxonomy was created and used forclassification of the 24 Likert-items (Liang, Chen, Chen, Kaya, Adams,Macklin, & Ebenezer, 2008). A scoring guide was also developed tocategorize student-constructed responses to the open-ended questions. Aresponse was considered as an informed view (score=“3”), if it wasconsistent with contemporary thought on the NOS theme as described inthe background section in this paper. Any responses that representedpartially informed views or failed to provide reasons for justification oftheir statements were rated as transitional views (score=“2”). Responsesthat involved either misconceptions or self-contradicting statements wererated as naïve views (score=“1”). Finally, each of the following situationswas coded as not classifiable (NC) if: there was no response; they statedthat they do not know; the response did not address the prompt; or, theresponse cannot be classified based on the rubric descriptions. Foranalysis of the constructed responses, the completed survey forms werefirst sorted by each country after assigning each form a letter associatedwith a different numerical number between 1 and 219 (e.g., U 1:representing student #1 in the USA sample; C 2: representing student #2in the Chinese sample; T 51: representing student #51 in the Turkishsample). Then the first 60 constructed responses by each theme and byeach country were scored by using the scoring guide. The selection of 60constructed responses for each theme by each country appeared to besufficient in our case, as no completely new explanations or examplesemerged after about 50 constructed responses were analyzed. WhenSUSSI was validated with the American sample, student responses on atleast five completed surveys were first coded by three members of the
LING L. LIANG ET AL.994
research team, and an average inter-rater reliability higher than 80% wasachieved. Similar inter-rater reliability levels (980%) were also achievedwhen two bilingual researchers coded the Chinese and Turkish studentresponses. The overall internal consistency of the Likert-scale responsesas measured by Cronbach alpha was 0.69 for the American and theTurkish sample, and 0.62 for the Chinese sample.
RESULTS
Table 1 presents the mean, standard deviation, one-way analyses ofvariance (ANOVA), effect size, and post hoc comparisons for the Likert-scale responses by theme and by country. The descriptive statistics revealthat the participants across the three countries scored higher in thetentativeness aspect and lower in the theory and law aspect. The ANOVAresults indicated statistically significant differences among three samplesfor each NOS aspect. Post hoc multiple comparisons (Turkey) wereperformed to determine statistically significant differences between allpossible pairs. Across the three countries, the Chinese sample scoredhighest on five of the six Likert sub-scales, the USA sample demonstratedmore informed views on observation and inference, and the Turkishpreservice teachers possessed relatively more traditional views in all sixNOS aspects.
The comparisons of preservice teachers’ responses to the open-endedquestions and illustrative examples are presented in Tables 2 and 3,respectively. These examples are verbatim quotes selected from theconstructed responses of the participants in the study. Organized bythemes and questions, the examples illustrate the respondents’ views ofthe nature of scientific knowledge development.
In the following sections, we examine the patterns of the participants’responses across the three samples in more detail.
OBSERVATIONS AND INFERENCES. The American preserviceteachers’ SUSSI Likert sub-scale total scores on this aspect weresignificantly higher (pG0.001) than those of the Chinese and Turkishrespondents, whereas no statistically significant differences were foundbetween the Chinese and the Turkish samples (Table 1). In general, themajority of the participants across three samples demonstrated transitionalviews that were combinations of both naïve and informed understandings.For instance, when individual Likert items within this aspect wereexamined, it was found that the overwhelming majority (85–96% across
NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT 995
TABLE1
Means,standard
deviations,andon
e-way
analyses
ofvariance
(ANOVA)forLikert-scalerespon
sesby
them
eandby
coun
try
TargetAspect
Turkey(n=21
9)China
(n=21
1)USA
(n=21
0)ANOVA
Postho
cM
SDM
SDM
SDF(2,63
7)η2
Observatio
nsandinferences
14.49
3.47
14.69
2.68
15.98
2.41
16.51*
*.05
Turkey,
China
GUSA
Tentativ
eness
15.59
2.26
17.10
2.59
15.81
2.27
25.24*
*.07
Turkey,
USA
GChina
Scientific
theories
andlaws
9.28
1.85
11.25
2.32
9.75
1.99
53.10*
*.14
TurkeyGUSA
GChina
Socialandcultu
ralem
beddedness
10.71
3.38
14.64
2.32
14.40
2.64
131.53**
.29
TurkeyGUSA,China
Creativity
andim
agination
14.41
2.96
15.38
2.94
11.59
3.69
79.30*
*.20
USA
GTurkeyGChina
Scientific
metho
ds14
.24
2.17
15.90
2.43
13.90
1.93
50.53*
*.14
USA,TurkeyGChina
η2=effect
size
**pG.001.
Maxim
umpossible
score=
20.Minim
umpossible
score=
0
LING L. LIANG ET AL.996
all three samples) agreed that scientists would make different inferencesor interpretations based on the same observations. However, a consider-able portion of the participants naively believed that observations werefacts (USA: 15%; China: 51%; Turkey: 31%) and scientists would makethe same observations because they were objective (USA: 11%; China:34%; Turkey: 31%). When the constructed responses were examined, thepercentage of informed views was found to be 22% for the Chineserespondents and 35% for the American and Turkish participants (Table 2).These teacher candidates appeared to recognize the theory-laden aspect ofboth observations and inferences in science.
TENTATIVENESS. When the total Likert sub-scales were compared,the mean score of the Chinese samples was significantly higher (pG0.001)than those of Turkish and American respondents. No statistically sig-nificant differences were found between the latter two groups.
Overall, the percentage of informed views on the aspect of tentative-ness was the highest (40–52%) among the six themes in the SUSSI Likertscales across the three samples. When individual Likert items wereexamined, it was found that an overwhelming majority (87–94%)believed that scientific theories were subject to on-going testing andrevision, and/or might be replaced by new theories in light of newevidence. However, in response to the Likert statements, fewer preserviceteachers (69%–79%) agreed that scientific theories might be changedbecause scientists reinterpret existing observations. When the constructed
TABLE 2
Comparison of preservice teachers’ responses to the open-ended questions by theme andby country (%)*
Target aspect
Naïve views** (%) Informed views (%)
USA China Turkey USA China Turkey
Observations and inferences 3 2 9 35 22 35Tentativeness 3 2 5 5 2 15Scientific theories and laws 98 49 82 0 0 0Social and cultural embeddedness 8 7 19 7 2 10Creativity and imagination 42 3 19 10 0 26Scientific methods 33 3 35 14 50 18
*The percentage (%) was calculated based on 60 responses per theme per country**The responses to the open-ended questions were classified according to the rubric described in themethodology section
NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT 997
TABLE3
Illustrativ
eexam
ples
ofpreservice
teachers’respon
sesto
theop
en-end
edqu
estio
nsby
them
eandby
coun
try
Targetaspect
Morenaïveview
sMoreinform
edview
s
USA
China
Turkey
USA
China
Turkey
Observatio
nsandInferences
1.With
exam
ples,
explainwhy
you
thinkscientists’
observations
and
interpretatio
nsarethesame
ORdifferent.
The
same,
because
thereisusually
acontroland
very
specific
“specificatio
ns”
foreach
experiment
that
cannot
beinterpretedin
many
differentways.
(Subject
#:U21)
Factsdo
notchange.
Inadditio
n,scientists
aretrainedto
think
insimilarways.
Therefore,scientists
may
obtain
the
sameobservational
results.
(Subject
#:C6)
Tome,
different
scientistsshould
have
thesame
observations
andinterpretatio
nsforthesame
phenom
ena
becausethey
are
lookingforthe
truthem
bedded
innature.
(Subject
#:T50)
Scientists’
observations
andinterpretatio
nsaredifferent
becauseeach
scientist’s
know
ledgeand
outlo
okon
anexperimentor
object
varies.
For
exam
ple,
ateacher’s
interpretatio
nof
something
would
becompletely
differentfrom
astudent’s
interpretatio
ndueto
theirlack
ofexperience
andknow
ledge
comparedto
theteacher.
(Subject
#:U32)
Different.When
twoobservers
observethesame
person,onemay
getthefrontview
while
theothermay
gettheside
view
.Different
inferences
orinterpretatio
nsmay
bemade
becauseboth
observerssee
things
from
their
ownperspective.
(Subject
#:C85)
Everyonehas
differentprior
know
ledge,
thinking
and
beliefsystem
sand
cultu
re.Such
differenceswill
resultin
differencesin
scientists’
observations
and
interpretatio
nsof
thesameevent.
(Subject
#:T17)
LING L. LIANG ET AL.998
Tentativ
eness
2.With
exam
ples,
explainwhy
you
thinkscientific
theories
change
ORdo
not
change
over
time.
Idon’tthink
scientistswill
change
theirminds
because
Ithinkthat
issomething
they
observed
every
timeandwhich
will
notchange.
(Subject
#:U25)
Scientific
theories
are
factsexistin
gin
nature,
they
may
ormay
notbe
discovered
byscientists.
(Subject
#:C23)
Onlytheories
that
are
proven
through
experimentalresearch
bydifferentscientists
will
becomelaws.
These
kindsof
sound
theories
will
notbe
changedbecausethey
arecertain.
Other
theories
canbe
changed.
(Subject
#:T26)
Scientific
theories
change
over
time
becauseweare
constantly
coming
across
new,more
accurate
data,
observations,and
facts.New
perspectives
arise
over
timethat
replaceoldones.
World
experiences
change
thoughts
ontheories.
(Subject
#:U12)
Ithinkthat
scientific
theories
canchange.
Duringdifferent
historical
periods,
people
may
study
thesameobjects
todifferentdepths.
Atheory
may
betentativelyconsistent
with
certain
phenom
ena,
butit
ispossible
that
something
more
fundam
entalisto
bediscovered,and
thereforeprevious
theories
may
becorrectedafterw
ards.
(Subject
#:C88)
Inlig
htof
new
ordifferentevidence,
scientific
theories
arecompletely
changedor
partially
modified.
Thisnew
evidence
isbasedon
not
only
the
technological
developm
entbut
also
reconsidering
existin
gknow
ledge.
For
exam
ple,
after
almost30
yearsof
arguingthat
ablackhole
swallowsup
everything
that
falls
into
it,Stephen
Haw
king
changedhismind
abouthisblack
hole
theory.I
amsure
that
here-conceptualized
hisprevious
ideas
andevidence
rather
than
using
new
technology.
(Subject
#:T22)
NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT 999
Scientific
theories
andlaws
3.With
exam
ples,
explainthe
difference
betweenscientific
theories
and
scientific
laws.
Scientific
theories
are“guesses”that
lack
enough
proof
tomakethem
theories.A
theory
isan
educated
claim
butitcan
change.A
scientific
law
alwaysremains
thesame.
There
is100%
evidence
toback
uplaws.
(Subject#:
U8)
Scientific
lawsarefacts
existin
g(orhiding)in
nature,while
theories
aredescriptions
ofnaturalphenom
ena
usingspecific
language.
(Subject
#:C56)
Theoriesaresimilarto
hypotheses,that
is,
they
arethefirststep
towardscientific
laws.
Theoriesareopen
todiscussion,butlaws
cannotbe
changed
oreven
discussed.
(Subject
#:T48)
N/A.[N
ote:
No
constructed
responses
received
ascoreof
“3”
orqualifiedas
inform
edview
s.]
N/A.[N
ote:
No
constructed
responsesreceived
ascoreof
“3”
orqualifiedas
inform
edview
s.]
N/A.[Note:No
constructed
responses
received
ascoreof
“3”or
qualifiedas
inform
edview
s.]
Socialandcultu
ral
embeddedness
4.With
exam
ples,
explainhow
societyand
cultu
reaffect
ORdo
notaffect
scientific
research.
Ido
notreally
believe
that
cultu
reaffectsscientific
research
because
research
isbased
onfactsand
provingthings,
notwhatisgoing
oninside
differentcultu
res.
(Subject#:
U9)
Scientific
research
such
ascloning
will
notbe
stopped
bysomepeople.
Scientific
research
isnotinfluenced
bysociety
andcultu
re.
(Subject
#:C46)
Ifyouareascientist,
youshould
putaside
allof
your
feelings,
cultu
ralandrelig
ious
beliefs
during
scientific
research
becausescientific
results
aretrue
andcertain.
(Subject
#:T33)
Certain
societies
andcultu
resvalue
specific
sciences.
Theychoose
tostudyand
exam
inedifferent
categories
ofscienceanduse
differentmethods
ormanners.
(Subject#:
U19)
Culture
and
society
influencethe
contentand
methods
ofscientific
research.
(Subject
#:C18)
Scientistsarealso
human
beings
who
livein
asociety.
Therefore,they
have
theirow
nsocialandcultu
ral
values,and
these
values
certainly
affectnotonlywhat
kindsof
research
they
cando
butalso
howtodo
it.…
(Subject#T12)
TABLE3
(Con
tinued)
LING L. LIANG ET AL.1000
Creativity
and
Imagination
5.With
exam
ples,
explainwhy
scientistsuseOR
donotuse
imagination
andcreativ
ity.
No,
Idon’tthink
scientistsusetheir
imaginationbecause
imaginarythings
aren’tfacts.
(Subject
#:U40)
No,
scientific
research
seeks
facts.Scientific
know
ledgecan
notbe
aproduct
ofcreativ
ityor
imagination.
(Subject
#:C68)
Doing
scientific
inquirydefinitely
requires
being
objective,
and
scienceconsists
oflogicalreasoning,
notim
agination
orcreativ
ity.
(Subject
#:T51)
Idefinitely
think
scientistsusetheir
imaginationand
creativ
itywhen
collectingand
interpretin
gdata.
With
outour
imagination
everything
istoo
blackandwhite.
Weneed
tothink
outsideof
thebox.
(Subject
#:U12)
N/A.[N
ote:
No
constructed
responses
received
ascoreof
“3”
orqualified
asinform
edview
s.]
Inmyopinion,
the
mostim
portant
difference
between
scientistsandus
isthat
they
are
alwaysusingtheir
creativ
ityand
imaginationfrom
thebeginningto
theendof
their
research.Using
creativ
ityand
imaginationis
necessaryto
see
nuancesor
importantpointsin
scientific
research.
Ibelieve
that
developm
entsof
manytheories
(e.g.,molecular
kinetic
theory)
arebasedon
the
capacity
ofscientists’creativ
ityandim
agination.
(Subject
#:T13)
NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT 1001
Scientific
methods
6.With
exam
ples,explain
whether
scientistsfollo
wasingle,universal
scientific
methodOR
usedifferentmethods.
Ithinkthereisauniversal
scientific
methodbecause
therewould
becomplications
ifthe
methods
vary.
(Subject#:
U41)
Sam
emethodor
procedure,
i.e.,from
making
observation=9proposing
hypothesis=9conductin
gexperiments=9
interpretin
gresults.
(Subject
#:C70)
Scientistscertainlyusea
universalstep-by-step
methodbecausethey
need
togetprooffortheir
research
from
other
scientists.Scientific
journalsalso
show
that
they
areusingthesame
way
todo
scientific
research.For
exam
ple,
each
article
consistsof
similarheadings
such
asresearch
questio
ns,
hypothesis,research
design
andprocedure,
data
collection,
results
anddiscussions.
Moreover,wearealso
usingthesame
methodin
ourlaboratory
courses.(Subject
#:T60)
Ithinkthey
use
differentmethods
dependingon
what
type
ofstudythey
areconductin
g.(Subject#:
U29)
Scientistsusemultip
lemethods,such
asobserving,
experimentin
g,and
hypothesizing.
(Subject
#:C77)
The
way
scientists
doinvestigations
isbasedon
thenature
ofproblemsor
questions
thatare
relatedtothe
structureof
the
field.Fu
rtherm
ore,
scientistsuse
differentw
ayseven
forthesame
problem
inthesame
field.Otherwise,
sciencewill
bevery
mechanical.But,I
believe
that
scientistsshouldbe
very
creative.It
means
thatthey
need
touse
differentw
ayssuch
asperforminglab
experimentsand
observations
tostudynature.
(Subject#:
T36)
Codes
areused
toidentifyindividual
participants.Eachcode
comprises
anumerical
numberandoneletter,which
indicatestheparticipant’scountry.
The
letters
“U,”
“C”and“T
,”referto
theUSA,China,andTurkey,
respectiv
ely
TABLE3
(Con
tinued)
LING L. LIANG ET AL.1002
responses were analyzed, even fewer (2–15%) mentioned that scientifictheories might change as a result of reinterpreting existing data orobservations. This is consistent with the findings in the literature, namely,respondents tend to recognize the tentative nature of science but oftenperceive that new information discovered by new technology is the onlyreason that such changes come about (Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick, &Lederman, 2000).
SCIENTIFIC THEORIES AND LAWS. Pair-wise comparisons of Likertsub-scale total scores on the aspect of scientific theories and laws re-vealed that the mean score of the Chinese sample was significantly higher(pG0.001) than that of the USA sample, which significantly outperformedthe Turkish sample (pG0.05).
Overall, the participants demonstrated the most confusion and lessunderstanding regarding the distinction between theory and law asreflected in their responses to both the Likert and the open-endedquestions. Across the three samples, no participants demonstratedinformed views on all four Likert items within the sub-scale. Whenresponses to the individual Likert items were examined, it was found that73–91% of the participants believed that scientific theories existed innature and were uncovered by scientists through scientific investigations.Moreover, an overwhelming majority in the American sample (85%) andthe Turkish sample (95%) believed that scientific laws were proventheories. By contrast, only 48% of Chinese respondents held suchmisconceptions. Many Chinese preservice teachers seemed to recognizethat theories are different from laws, but were uncertain about therelationship between the two. Similar patterns were obtained when theconstructed responses were analyzed across the three samples (Table 2).
SOCIAL AND CULTURAL EMBEDDEDNESS. Overall, respondentsacross all three samples possessed transitional views about this NOSaspect. The means of the sub-scale scores, the American and Chinesesamples were significantly higher (pG0.001) than that of the Turkishgroup. No statistically significant difference was identified between theChinese and the American samples.
When the responses to the individual Likert items were examined, itappeared that the Turkish respondents were more likely to believe that allcultures conduct scientific research in the same way (58%) and that scientistsare trained to conduct pure and unbiased studies (62%), in comparison to theAmerican and Chinese participants’ responses to the same items (USA:10%–16%; China: 15%–21%). A similar pattern was observed based on the
NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT 1003
analysis of the constructed responses to the open-ended question. Whilebetween 7 and 8% of American or Chinese participants demonstrated naïveNOS views, about 19% of Turkish teacher candidates’ constructed naïveviews. As shown in Table 2, the percentage of informed views on the aspectof social and cultural contributions was relatively low across three samples.This was because many constructed responses indicated that culturalvalues and expectations would influence either “what” or “how” sciencewas conducted and accepted, but failed to mention both (see Table 3).
CREATIVITY AND IMAGINATION. According to the results frompost hoc multiple comparisons, the American group scored the lowest,while the Chinese sample scored the highest. When the responses to theindividual Likert items were examined, it appeared that about 45% of theAmerican respondents believed that scientists do not use creativity orimagination, while about 9–15% of the Turkish and Chinese participantsheld similar views. It was further revealed that American participantswere less likely to agree that scientists would use their imagination orcreativity when collecting data (41%) and/or interpreting data (33%), incomparison to the Chinese and Turkish teacher candidates (52–63%).This finding is consistent with the results that will be discussed in the“scientific methods” section, i.e., more American students perceive thedevelopment of scientific knowledge as a step-by-step procedure (orfollowing the same scientific method) rather than a creative process.
During data analysis, we also noted that the percentage of “informed”constructed responses was consistently lower than the percentage of“informed” Likert responses across the three samples. As shown inTable 2, 10% of the American and 26% of the Turkish participants’constructed responses that were classified as “informed” while thepercentage of “informed” responses for the Chinese group was zero. Thisdoes not necessarily mean that none of the Chinese participants possessedinformed views on this NOS aspect. In fact, about 27% of the Chinesepreservice teachers demonstrated an informed view when responding toall four Likert sub-scale items. But their written responses were too shortor incomplete to be considered as “informed” according to our stringentscoring rubric. For instance, an “informed” response to the open-endedquestion was required to emphasize that scientists use their imagination orcreativity during all phases of their scientific investigations includingresearch design, data collection, data analysis and interpretation, etc.Many respondents stated that scientists would use their imagination andcreativity without specifying “when” or during what phases of scientificinvestigation. Their constructed responses were therefore rated as “2”
LING L. LIANG ET AL.1004
(transitional views) despite the fact that they demonstrated an informedunderstanding in responding to the related Likert items.
SCIENTIFIC METHODS. The mean score of the Chinese group wasfound to be significantly higher than those of both the Turkish and theAmerican samples (pG0.001), while no statistically significant differencebetween the means of the Turkish and the American samples was detected(pG0.23). It appeared that the American and the Turkish participants weremore likely to have misperceptions about “the scientific method” than theChinese teacher candidates did. When the responses to the individualLikert items were examined, it was found that about 13% of the Chineserespondents believed that there is a universal scientific method, incomparison to 48% of the American and 39% of the Turkish participantswho held similar views. When the constructed responses were analyzed,we also found more valid examples of different scientific methods (i.e.,observation, experimentation, etc.) in the Chinese sample. Very fewAmerican or Turkish respondents were able to provide valid examples ofdifferent types of scientific methods other than experimentation.
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
In this international collaborative study, we examined preservice teachers’views on the development of scientific knowledge in three distinctcontexts: the United States, China, and Turkey. The research instrumentused in this study was a survey entitled Student Understanding of Scienceand Scientific Inquiry (SUSSI), which blends Likert-type items and relatedopen-ended questions to help the researchers gain a fuller understandingof the participants’ views of the nature of scientific knowledgedevelopment. While our results are corroborated by the NOS researchof the past several decades, i.e., teachers do not typically possesscoherent, informed NOS views (Lederman, 2007), we also identified afew interesting patterns across the three sites. Specifically, the Americanteacher candidates appeared to be more informed about the theory-ladennature of observations and inferences, in comparison to the Chinese andthe Turkish participants. However, the Chinese teacher candidatesreceived the highest Likert scores on the remaining five aspects of NOSacross the three samples (i.e., tentativeness, scientific theories and laws,social and cultural embeddedness, creativity and imagination, andscientific methods). Furthermore, far fewer Chinese preservice teachersperceived the hierarchical relationship between scientific theories and
NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT 1005
laws, and many more Chinese participants were able to demonstrate theirunderstanding of scientific methods by providing valid examples. In thefollowing section, we provide some speculations about the cause of suchfindings.
For historical and religious reasons, in American society there seems tobe a widespread distrust of the theory of evolution and the evidence thatsupports it. It is not surprising that more American participants viewedobservations and inferences as theory-laden because this view couldprovide a mechanism for producing incorrect theories and unreliableevidence. Furthermore, the word “theory” is often perceived as highlyspeculative and uncertain in America where the comment, “It is just atheory,” is frequently heard. Therefore, it seems to be more “natural” forAmericans to view scientific laws as being more certain than theorieswhether or not they have received formal instruction on NOS in school.
Regarding scientific methods, in the recent history of science educationin the United States, school science curricula with an emphasis on processskills and scientific inquiry were promoted in the 1960s and again in thecurrent standards-based reform movements. Most American participantsin our study had some experience with hands-on science activities and/orscientific experimentation. Unfortunately, scientific experiments orscience projects have been misrepresented and reduced to the step-by-step scientific method in many popular textbooks/lab manuals and inscience classrooms in America (McComas, 1998). Similar to theconventional laboratory work in America, Turkish students performconfirmatory science labs and fill out recipe-type lab reports. Thispractice could help to explain why so many American and Turkishteacher candidates demonstrated higher levels of misunderstanding of thescientific method and why they were likely to fail to recognize thecreative and imaginative nature of science prevalent in the scientificenterprise. The results suggest that improper practices of laboratoryexperiments convey a distorted picture of scientific inquiry.
In China, was only recently that the national science curriculumstandards and curriculum materials began to require students to have anunderstanding of scientific inquiry (Ministry of Education of the People’sRepublic of China, 2001). Nevertheless, the belief that theories are moreimportant and superior to practical work is deeply rooted in the traditionalChinese culture. To help students achieve higher scores on exams, scienceteachers often choose to explain both science content and requiredexperiments through lectures, instead of having students actually performexperiments. Also integrated into the lectures may be brief biographicalinformation about renowned scientists, comments on scientists’ creativity
LING L. LIANG ET AL.1006
and the use of various scientific methods and experiments in science. InChinese schools, the “inquiry projects” component required in nationalscience curriculum guidelines was often ignored because lecturesaccompanied by intensive practice of routine and non-routine problem-solving were perceived as the most efficient ways to help students achievehigher scores in regional/national examinations. Sometimes, the lack oflaboratory equipment also contributed to such practices. As a result, theChinese participants seemed to be less “contaminated” by the widely heldmisconception of “the scientific method” as presented in many sciencetextbooks and laboratory manuals in the United States and Turkey. TheChinese respondents appeared to be more able to provide valid examplesof scientific methods in words. We are uncertain, however, whether theseteacher candidates were capable of performing scientific investigations byapplying multiple science methods in action.
It is worthy to point out some of our observations and concernsspecifically related to the Chinese sample here. In several aspects of NOS,such as scientific theories and laws, social and cultural embeddedness,and creativity and imagination, although the Chinese teacher candidateshad higher scores on the Likert scale, fewer participants did indeedconstruct informed views on the open-ended questions as shown onTables 2 and 3. Further examination of their responses to the Likert itemswithin each sub-scale confirmed that these Chinese teacher candidatesscored relatively high because fewer percentages of them possessedcompletely naïve views. The majority of the Chinese participants heldtransitional views, or a combination of traditional and contemporaryviews of NOS. They might have gained some NOS knowledge fromlectures in school. However, they had very limited experiences related tothe NOS issues.
For both Turkey and China, science is an imported school subjectoriginated from the Western culture. People in the East tend to believethat it is the science that has made Western countries powerful. Science,often presented as being objective and powerful, is much emphasized inthe school curricula in these two countries. When a popular scienceteaching methods textbook recently published in China was examined, thefollowing statements were found: “the purpose of science is to find truth,and truthfully describe the scientific laws which govern the naturalworld… If a theory is later proven to be wrong and is discarded, it isbecause the scientists have either made mistakes or have misusedscientific methods” (Yuan & Cai, 2003, p 9). This indicated that manyChinese science educators may have the notion of “out there” science andthat science has to be discovered (or uncovered) rather than interpreted
NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT 1007
and invented, despite the effort made by leading science educationreformers to align the Chinese school science standards with thosepromoted in the international science education community. This couldhelp to explain why many Chinese respondents failed to recognize thetheory-laden aspect of NOS. In addition, in an exam-driven educationalsystem, the relevant NOS issues have never appeared in high-stakescience examinations and therefore are seldom discussed in scienceclassrooms in China. Likewise, some Turkish participants wrote in theopen-ended questionnaire regarding observations and inferences andsocial embeddedness that scientists look for the truth embedded in natureand scientific results are true and certain (see Table 3 for examples). As aresult of the presentation of science in school curriculum, many Chineseand Turkish respondents view science as extremely objective withoutrecognizing the theory-laden aspect of NOS.
Finally, the Turkish sample appeared to possess relatively lessinformed NOS views in all six aspects. In a recent article, Yalvac,Tekkaya, Cakiroglu and Kahyaoglu (2007) criticized the elementary andhigh school textbooks in Turkey for including misleading assumptionsabout NOS. For example, the nature of scientific knowledge is introducedas a stand alone unit in the 9th-grade biology textbook in the context of“Biology as a Science.” The hierarchical development of hypotheses,theories, and laws and the idea of “the scientific method” were advocatedin the unit. Consequently, a large number of Turkish participantsdemonstrated naïve views on several NOS aspects in our study.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
In the present study, we have chosen preservice teachers as our targetpopulation because we believe that the learning and teaching of NOS-related issues will be improved only when the pre-/in-service teachersdemonstrate informed NOS views and are able to demonstrate theirunderstandings in action. The findings of this study can inform scienceeducators and curriculum designers of the development of curriculummaterials and instructional strategies to enhance learners’ understandingof NOS from international perspectives. However, we must point out thatthere are several limitations of this study. First, the samples from ourstudy were relatively small and were drawn from the universities wherethe co-authors of this paper were working. The samples did not representthe various preservice teacher education programs within each country.Secondly, due to the differences in teacher-preparation systems among the
LING L. LIANG ET AL.1008
countries, the participants from three sites were not perfectly matched interms of science background and their anticipated teaching grade levels.Thirdly, in this study we focused on identification of common NOS-related issues among learners within the three distinct cultural contexts.The SUSSI instrument is not sensitive to elicit the preservice teachers’views of NOS influenced by their respective cultures including worldviewsand religious beliefs. Cultural impact on preservice teachers’ NOS viewcould be further studied through alternative methods such as case study,interviews, or analysis of classroom discourse. Based on existing literatureand our own findings, we further speculate that other factors such as schoolcurriculum structures and the use of particular language or terminology inschool science curricula, also played a role in the development of learners’NOS views. For instance, in our data analysis, we found that fewer Chineselearners believed that theories are less certain than laws. This might berelated to the usage of “theories” in the Chinese language. In Chinesescience textbooks, scientific theory is sometimes used interchangeably withseveral other terms such as scientific knowledge and scientific principles,and does not connote a strong sense of less certainty than scientific laws. Incontrast, in America the word “theory” connotes speculation anduncertainty in everyday language. Future studies should investigate inmore depth how the learners’ worldviews, cultures, structures of schoolcurricula, and the use of science terminology in their native languages mayhave influenced their understandings of NOS, by employing multipleresearch tools with more representative samples.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors of this paper would like to thank the following individuals fortheir suggestions and /or assistance related to the SUSSI project: Dr. GlenS. Aikenhead, Dr. Abhijeet S Bardapurkar, Dr. Chorng-Jee Guo,Dr. Michael R. Matthews, Dr. Stefan Samulewicz, Dr. GultekinCakmakci, Prof. Alev Dogan, Prof. Bertram Strieb, Prof. KouzhuangZhong, graduate assistants, and anonymous reviewers.
REFERENCES
Abd-El-Khalick, F. & BouJaoude, S. (1997). An exploratory study of the knowledge basefor science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 673–699.
Aikenhead, G. S. & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: “Viewson science-technology-society” (VOSTS). Science Education, 76, 477–491.
NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT 1009
Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Lederman, N. (2000). Influence of a reflectiveexplicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature ofscience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295–317.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). Science for all Americans.New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for scienceliteracy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bird, A. (1998). Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge.Bora, N. D., Aslan, O. & Cakiroglu, J. (2006, April). Investigating science teachers’ and highschool students’ views on the nature of science in Turkey. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
Chen, S. (2006). Development of an instrument to assess views on nature of science andattitudes toward teaching science. Science Education, 90, 803–819.
Cheung, K. C. & Toh, K. A. (1990). In the eyes of the beholder: Beginning teachers’conception of the nature of science and science teaching. Paper presented at the annualconference of the Educational Research Association, Singapore.
Cobern, W. W. (1989). A comparative analysis of NOSS profiles on Nigerian andAmerican pre-service, secondary science teachers. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 26, 533–541.
Desautels, J. & Larochelle, M. (1998). The epistemology of students: The ’thingified’nature of scientific knowledge. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), Internationalhandbook of science education (pp. 115–128). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Erdogan, R., Cakiroglu, J. & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Investigating Turkish Pre-servicescience teachers’ views of the nature of science. In C.V. Sunal & K. Mutua (Eds.),Research on education in Africa, The Caribbean and the Middle East (pp. 273–285).Greenwich: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Hodson, D. (1991). Philosophy of science and science education. In M.R. Matthews (Ed.),History, philosophy and science teaching: selected readings (pp. 19–32). New York:Teachers College Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: areview of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879).Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L. & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of natureof science questionnaire: toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521.
Liang, L. L, Chen, S., Chen, X., Kaya, O. N., Adams, A. D., Macklin, M. & Ebenezer, J.(2008). Assessing preservice elementary teachers’ views on the nature of scientificknowledge: a dual-response instrument. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning andTeaching.
Lin, H. S. & Chen, C. C. (2002). Promoting pre-service science teachers’ understandingabout the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39, 773–792.
LING L. LIANG ET AL.1010
Liu, S.-Y. & Lederman, N. G. (2007). Exploring prospective teachers’ worldviews andconceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1281–1307.
Matthews, M. R. (1988). A role for history and philosophy in science teaching.Educational Philosophy and Theory, 20, 67–81.
McComas, W. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling themyths. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: rationalesand strategies (pp. 53–70). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
McComas, W. & Olson, J. (1998). The nature of science in international science educationstandards documents. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in scienceeducation: rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer AcademicPublishers.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (2001). Science educationstandards (7–9). Beijing: Beijing Normal University.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington,DC: National Research Council.
National Science Teachers Association (2000). NSTA position statement: the nature ofscience. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R. & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692–720.
Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science. ScienceEducation, 77, 261–278.
Popper, K. (1998). The rationality of science revolutions. In J.A. Kourany (Ed.), Scientificknowledge (pp. 286–300). Wadsworth, CA: Belmont. (Reprinted from Problems ofscientific revolution: progress and obstacles to progress in the sciences, pp. 72–101, byR. Harre, Ed., 1975, Oxford: Clarendon Press)
Rubba, P. A. (1977). The development, field testing and validation of an instrument toassess secondary school students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Indiana.
Ryan, A. G. & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemologyof science. Science Education, 76, 559–580.
Sutherland, D. & Dennick, R. (2002). Exploring culture, language and the perception ofthe nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1–25.
Turkish Ministry of National Education (2005). New curriculum of science andtechnology education. Retrieved December 24, 2005, from Turkey’s National Boardof Education Web site: http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/ogretmen/.
Yalvac, B., Tekkaya, C., Cakiroglu, J. & Kahyaoglu, E. (2007). Turkish pre-servicescience teachers’ views on science-technology-society issues. International Journal ofScience Education, 29, 331–348.
Yuan, Y. & Cai, T. (2003). Science curriculum and instruction. Hangzhou, China:Zhejiang Education Press.
Zhang, B. H., Krajcik, J. S., Sutherland, L. M., Wang, L., Wu, J. & Qian, Y. (2003).Opportunities and challenges of China’s inquiry-based education reform in middle andhigh schools: Perspectives of science teachers and teacher educators. InternationalJournal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1, 477–503.
NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT 1011
Ling L. Liang
Department of EducationLa Salle UniversityPhiladelphia, PA, 19141, USAE-mail: liang@lasalle.edu
Sufen Chen
National Taiwan University of Science and TechnologyTaipei, Taiwan
Xian Chen
Nanjing Normal UniversityNanjing, P. R. China
Osman Nafiz Kaya
Firat UniversityElazig, Turkey
April Dean Adams and Monica Macklin
Northeastern State UniversityTahlequah, OK, USA
Jazlin Ebenezer
Wayne State UniversityDetroit, MI, USA
LING L. LIANG ET AL.1012
top related