This article was downloaded by: [Dana Zeidler]On: 23 April 2012, At: 15:04Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Contextualizing Nature of ScienceInstruction in Socioscientific IssuesJennifer Lynne Eastwood a , Troy D. Sadler b , Dana L. Zeidler c ,Anna Lewis d , Leila Amiri c & Scott Applebaum ca Department of Biomedical Sciences, Oakland University WilliamBeaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, MI, USAb MU Science Education Center, University of Missouri-Columbia,Columbia, MO, USAc Department of Secondary Education, University of South Florida,Tampa, FL, USAd Coalition for Science Literacy, University of South Florida,Tampa, FL, USA

Available online: 18 Apr 2012

To cite this article: Jennifer Lynne Eastwood, Troy D. Sadler, Dana L. Zeidler, Anna Lewis, LeilaAmiri & Scott Applebaum (2012): Contextualizing Nature of Science Instruction in SocioscientificIssues, International Journal of Science Education, DOI:10.1080/09500693.2012.667582

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.667582

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,

demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

Contextualizing Nature of Science

Instruction in Socioscientific Issues

Jennifer Lynne Eastwooda∗, Troy D. Sadlerb, Dana L.Zeidlerc, Anna Lewisd, Leila Amiric and Scott Applebaumc

aDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Oakland University William Beaumont School of

Medicine, Rochester, MI, USA; bMU Science Education Center, University of Missouri-

Columbia, Columbia, MO, USA; cDepartment of Secondary Education, University of

South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA; dCoalition for Science Literacy, University of South

Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of two learning contexts for explicit-reflective

nature of science (NOS) instruction, socioscientific issues (SSI) driven and content driven, on

student NOS conceptions. Four classes of 11th and 12th grade anatomy and physiology students

participated. Two classes experienced a curricular sequence organized around SSI (the SSI

group), and two classes experienced a content-based sequence (the Content group). An open-

ended NOS questionnaire was administered to both groups at the beginning and end of the

school year and analyzed to generate student profiles. Quantitative analyses were performed to

compare pre-instruction NOS conceptions between groups as well as pre to post changes within

groups and between groups. Both SSI and Content groups showed significant gains in most NOS

themes, but between-group gains were not significantly different. Qualitative analysis of post-

instruction responses, however, revealed that students in the SSI group tended to use examples

to describe their views of the social/cultural NOS. The findings support SSI contexts as effective

for promoting gains in students’ NOS understanding and suggest that these contexts facilitate

nuanced conceptions that should be further explored.

Keywords: Nature of science; Scientific literacy; Science; Technology; Society;

Socioscientific issues

International Journal of Science Education

2012, 1–27, iFirst Article

∗Corresponding author. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Oakland University William Beaumont

School of Medicine, 503 O’Dowd Hall, Rochester 48309, MI, USA. Email: eastwood@oakland.edu

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/12/000001–27

# 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.667582

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

Introduction

Understanding the nature of science (NOS) is an essential part of scientific literacy

(Allchin, 2011; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989, 1993;

National Research Council [NRC], 1996; Roberts, 2007), and thus teaching NOS is a

primary focus of science education worldwide (Lederman, 2007). Along with science

concepts and inquiry practice, NOS is highlighted as an essential component of the

content that science instruction should provide (NRC, 1996). Socioscientific issues

(SSI) have been established as effective contexts for development of knowledge and

processes contributing to scientific literacy, including evidence-based argumentation,

consensus building, moral reasoning, and understanding and application of science

content knowledge (Sadler, 2009; Zeidler & Sadler, 2011). Considering that SSI

engage students in these central processes of science, and that they provide many oppor-

tunities for explicit discussions of NOS, several researchers have proposed relationships

between NOS views and decision-making in SSI (Abd-El-Khalick, 2003; Bell &

Lederman, 2003; Bell, Matkins, & Gansneder, 2011; Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler,

2002, 2004; Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, & Simmons, 2002). In this study, we explore

how students’ NOS views change through explicit-reflective NOS instruction contextua-

lized over a full school year in an SSI-based course and a content-based course.

Nature of Science

Scholars in the field of science education generally agree that NOS represents the epis-

temology of science, science as a way of knowing, and ‘the values and beliefs inherent

to scientific knowledge and development’ (Lederman, 1992). Although there is no

complete consensus on a definition of NOS, generally accepted aspects include: scien-

tific knowledge is tentative, empirically based, influenced by social and cultural

factors, and inspired by human creativity and imagination, scientists’ interpretations

are subjective, theories and laws are different kinds of scientific knowledge, and

making observations and inferences are distinct activities (Lederman, 2007).

Research into students’, teachers’, and pre-service teachers’ NOS conceptions has

shown these groups to have generally unsophisticated understanding of NOS

(Lederman, 1992; Ryan & Aikenhead, 1992), and much research has focussed on

developing effective NOS instruction (Lederman, 2007; Sandoval, 2005).

Two distinct approaches to teaching NOS have been discussed in the literature: the

implicit approach in which students are expected to build understanding of NOS

through participating in inquiry activities and enacting process skills, and the explicit

approach in which learning NOS is treated as a cognitive outcome (Abd-El-Khalick &

Lederman, 2000; Lederman, 2007). Research has shown that an explicit approach to

teaching NOS is more effective in facilitating students’ and teachers’ development

of more informed views of NOS (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Khishfe &

Abd-El-Khalick, 2002). In addition, the combination of explicit NOS instruction

with opportunities to reflect on NOS in the context of inquiry (Schwartz, Lederman,

& Crawford, 2004), history of science (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000), and

2 J. L. Eastwood et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

elementary science methods (Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick, & Lederman, 2000) has been

shown to improve NOS conceptions. In the explicit-reflective approach used in

these studies, students or teachers are introduced to the aspects of NOS through

examples and activities (Lederman & Abd-El-Khalick, 1998) and engaged in struc-

tured opportunities for reflection, which encourage learners to draw connections

between these experiences, their growing understanding of science, and NOS aspects.

Explicit approaches to NOS teaching may be characterized as ‘integrated’ where

NOS instruction is embedded in the science content and ‘non-integrated’ where

explicit NOS instruction is treated as an independent body of knowledge. Featuring

NOS instruction as a stand-alone unit in the midst of broader science curriculum is

a typical non-integrated approach. Studies that compare integrated and non-inte-

grated approaches with high school students (Khishfe & Lederman, 2006, 2007)

have shown learner gains in NOS conceptions for both conditions, but no significant

differences between the two approaches.

Socioscientific Issues

SSI are ill-structured problems for which solutions are uncertain and complex

(Baxter Magolda, 1999; Kuhn, 1991; Zohar & Nemet, 2002), and, at a minimum,

incorporate two main elements: (1) connections to science content, and (2) social

significance. Because SSI are controversial, have relevance to society, and encompass

varying viewpoints, they have great potential for generating interest among students.

In developing their own positions on SSI, students not only incorporate scientific

knowledge and data, but must also consider social, economic, ethical, and moral

aspects of the problem (Sadler, 2009). Productive SSI-learning environments tend

to engage students in processes of data analysis, reasoning, argumentation, and

decision-making. The learning environment is collaborative and respectful, and

expectations for student participation are high (Sadler, 2011).

Existing literature about SSI has focussed on the effects of SSI-learning

environments on higher-order thinking skills, including argumentation, creativity,

and reflective judgment; science content learning; and motivation (Sadler, 2009).

Many studies of students’ argumentation processes in SSI have documented gains

(Dori, Tal, & Tsaushu, 2003; Tal & Hochberg, 2003; Tal & Kedmi, 2006; Pedretti,

1999; Walker & Zeidler, 2007; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). Others have documented

difficulties, common to argumentation in general, in students’ development of

argumentation practices in SSI (Albe, 2008; Harris & Ratcliffe, 2005; Kortland,

1996). Studies have shown that students in SSI contexts were more likely to display

creativity in their work (Yager, Lim, & Yager, 2006) or show gains in creativity (Lee

& Erdogan, 2007). Additionally, SSI-based instruction was shown to promote

epistemological development through documenting gains in reflective judgment

(Zeidler, Sadler, Applebaum, & Callahan, 2009).

The majority of research on science content learning in SSI has found that SSI-

learning environments promote gains in conceptual knowledge (Sadler, Barab, and

Scott, 2007; Dori et al., 2003; Klosterman & Sadler, 2010; Yager et al., 2006).

Nature of Science in SSI 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

Researchers that compare SSI contexts to traditional science learning contexts

support the claim that SSI contexts facilitate content learning as effectively as

(Barker & Millar, 1996; Yager et al., 2006) or more effectively than traditional

learning environments (Zohar & Nemet, 2002). The literature also supports the

premise that students find SSI interesting (Albe, 2008; Bennett, Grasel, Parchmann,

& Waddington, 2005; Bulte, Westbroek, de Jong, & Pilot, 2006; Dori et al., 2003;

Zeidler et al., 2009; Harris & Ratcliffe, 2005) and motivational for learning (Dori

et al., 2003; Parchmann et al., 2006). In addition, SSI have been linked to increases

in students’ community involvement (Yager et al., 2006), improved attitudes toward

science (Lee & Erdogan, 2007; Yager et al., 2006), and stronger intentions to study

science in college (Barber, 2001).

NOS in SSI Contexts

SSI-learning environments incorporate processes that relate to NOS and provide

numerous opportunities for explicit connections to aspects of NOS. For these

reasons, researchers have proposed connections between NOS conceptions and

decision-making in SSI. Some have investigated whether NOS conceptions relate to

reasoning processes in the context of SSI. For example, Zeidler et al. (2002) investi-

gated the relationships between students’ NOS understanding and their responses

to evidence that challenged their beliefs. Forty-one pairs of high school students or

pre-service science teachers who represented opposing viewpoints responded to

questionnaires and interviews, eliciting their conceptions of NOS and their beliefs

on an SSI. Taxonomies of students’ NOS conceptions revealed that NOS under-

standing is represented in the ways students respond to evidence conflicting with

their beliefs about SSI; however, students’ explanations of their reasoning with the

SSI were not always congruent with evaluations of their NOS conceptions.

In another study, Sadler et al. (2002) investigated students’ understanding of three

NOS aspects (meaning and interpretation of data, cultural embeddedness, and tenta-

tiveness) and students’ negotiation of conflicting evidence in the context of an SSI.

Students read two contradictory reports on global warming and responded to

questions eliciting understanding of targeted NOS aspects and factors influencing

decision-making in SSI. Distinct categories emerged for each targeted NOS aspect,

which included how data are used to support positions (the empirical NOS), social

influences on a scientific issue, and explanations of the existence of opposing positions

(the tentative NOS). Results revealed that students brought various NOS conceptions

into SSI, and the authors highlighted that SSI could provide abundant opportunities

for addressing NOS in the science classroom.

Other studies have evaluated students’ development and application of NOS views

when engaged in SSI-learning environments. In an exploratory case study, Walker &

Zeidler (2007) investigated the ways in which high school science students interacted

with explicit links to NOS in a web-based SSI unit and the characteristics of students’

argumentation and discourse in a debate. Instruction embedded in the WISE

(web-based inquiry science environment; Bell & Linn, 2000; Linn, Clark, & Slotta,

4 J. L. Eastwood et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

2003) platform explicitly incorporated NOS aspects and was designed to engage

students in inquiry and scaffold development of evidence-based arguments. Using

field observations, responses to the Nature of Scientific Knowledge Scale (Rubba &

Andersen, 1978), written artifacts from web-based activities, student participation

in a debate activity, and semi-structured interviews, the authors found that students

did refer to NOS ideas, including creative, tentative, subjective, and social aspects.

However, students did not incorporate discussion of NOS into their debate activity,

even when invoking NOS aspects would have been relevant and useful.

Matkins and Bell (2007) also investigated the effects of integrating NOS instruction

into an SSI. Fifteen pre-service elementary teachers were engaged in instruction on

global climate change and global warming (GCC/GW) with explicit-reflective

teaching of NOS. From analysis of pre- and post-assessments on NOS and GCC/

GW, class assignments, student journals, and interviews, Matkins and Bell concluded

that students improved their understanding of both NOS and GCC/GW, and they

applied these understanding in their decision-making about the SSI.

Khishfe and Lederman (2006) also studied NOS instruction embedded within an

SSI-learning environment. They compared ninth grade environmental science stu-

dents’ NOS conceptions after explicit NOS instruction integrated into a controversial

issue, and non-integrated. In the integrated group, NOS aspects were explicitly con-

nected to global climate content through reflective discussions. The non-integrated

group experienced the same unit on global climate, but received NOS instruction

through generic activities (Lederman & Abd-El-Khalick, 1998) that were temporally

dispersed throughout the unit. Using survey responses and interview data, profiles of

NOS views were generated for each student’s pre- and post-instructional understand-

ing of the tentative, empirical, creative, and subjective NOS and the distinction

between observation and inference. Khishfe and Lederman found that while both

groups improved their NOS conceptions, the integrated group showed slightly

greater gains in informed views and the non-integrated group showed slightly

greater gains in transitional views. The findings suggest that integration of NOS in

controversial science topics is at least as effective in improving NOS conceptions as

de-contextualized explicit-reflective NOS instruction.

In a more recent study, Bell et al. (2011) examined NOS understanding of four sec-

tions of an elementary science method course in relation to two variables: explicit-

reflective or implicit approaches, and SSI-embedded or non-SSI-embedded contexts

of NOS instruction. A 2 × 2 design was used where two sections experienced SSI-

based instruction through a unit on GCC/GW, and two groups received explicit-

reflective NOS teaching incorporating activities, discussion, and reflection. The

four treatment groups included explicit GCC/GW and explicit NOS, no GCC/GW

and explicit NOS, explicit GCC/GW and implicit NOS, and no GCC/GW and

implicit NOS. With the use of pre- and post-questionnaires, classroom artifacts,

and semistructured interviews, the authors found that students in the explicit-

reflective NOS treatment groups (both GCC/GWand no GCC/GW) made significant

gains in NOS conceptions and were able to appropriately apply their understanding

to new situations, but students in the implicit NOS groups made no significant

Nature of Science in SSI 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

gains in NOS understanding. Although NOS gains were not significantly different

between the two explicit NOS groups, only the students who experienced explicit

NOS teaching in the SSI context were able to apply targeted NOS views in their

justifications for government-supported alternative energy in post-tests. These

students incorporated their understanding of evidence, subjectivity, and consensus

in a question on decision-making on GCC/GW.

Although many researchers have proposed connections between students’ NOS

views and decision-making in SSI, the existing research still provides little empirical

evidence for that link (Sadler, 2009). The studies that have addressed NOS instruc-

tion in SSI-learning environments suggest that these environments can be effective to

facilitate improvement in students’ conceptions of identified NOS aspects. Several

authors have criticized the conceptualization of ‘aspects’ of NOS and associated

assessments as promoting an overly processed ‘consensus list’ that encourages stu-

dents to learn declarative statements about science rather than gain competence in

interpreting scientific practice for personal and democratic decision-making

(Allchin, 2011; Feinstein, 2010). While we recognize the value of NOS understanding

to informed analysis and decision-making in real-world SSI, we also do not discount

the value of these understanding as cognitive outcomes in themselves, similar to

understanding the role of base pairing in DNA replication or the purpose of a negative

control in an experiment. However, these understanding must be more robust than

borrowed statements, such as ‘science is tentative’. Students’ elaboration of their

views is required to establish an informed view, and we consider well-elaborated con-

ceptions of NOS valuable knowledge. Given these perspectives on NOS and SSI,

more information is needed on the effectiveness of SSI-learning contexts in helping

students develop informed NOS conceptions. This study addresses how a long-

term, explicit-reflective approach to NOS instruction in SSI-based and content-

based courses influences students’ NOS understanding.

Theoretical Perspective Guiding Classroom Context and Research

Our view of SSI is grounded in the interrelated theoretical constructs of situated

learning, communities of practice, and Gee’s discourse (Sadler, 2009; Brown,

Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Gee, 1999; Greeno, 1998; Lave, 1991; Lave & Wenger,

1991). Situated learning emphasizes the interconnectedness of the environment

and the processes of knowing and learning. Learning occurs as students interact

with other individuals and resources, and the relationship between the individual

and the context afford and constrain the learning that can occur (Greeno, 1998).

A community of practice includes the physical environment, individuals interacting

within that environment, and the tacit and explicit cultural norms of that environment

(Lave, 1991). Learners undergo a process of enculturation, where they come to under-

stand the norms of participation in that community (Barab, Barnett, & Squire, 2002).

Sadler (2009) calls for SSI contexts that transform science classrooms into communities

of practice, in which participants develop socioscientific discourses. Socioscientific

discourse (capital ‘D’), as consistent with Gee’s (1999) construct of discourse, includes

6 J. L. Eastwood et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

both verbal interaction between individuals (discourse—lower case ‘d’) and the activities

of the community in which individuals interact. In such a ‘transformed’ science class-

room, learners develop identities as legitimate participants in socioscientific discourses,

in which they are willing and empowered to contribute to society through negotiation of

both scientific and social aspects of real-world problems (Sadler, 2009). Additionally,

socioscientific discourses should incorporate epistemological norms, such as an

emphasis on NOS. The SSI classes in this study represent a ‘transformed’ learning

environment, in which a high school anatomy and physiology curriculum was altered to

engage students in scientific inquiry, promote epistemological development, and encou-

rage reflection on developing commitments (Zeidler, Applebaum, & Sadler, 2011).

Focus of the Current Study

This study examines two different contexts for integrated, explicit-reflective NOS

instruction carried out over a full school year: SSI driven and Content driven. We

investigate how NOS instruction contextualized in an SSI-learning environment

and NOS instruction contextualized in a science content-driven curriculum influence

students’ NOS conceptions and whether the two conditions shape student NOS

conceptions in unique ways. Additionally, we examine whether students’ responses

reveal qualitative differences in students’ understanding of NOS that relate to the

context of instruction. Research questions include the following:

(1) Does explicit-reflective NOS instruction contextualized within an SSI-driven

curriculum lead to student gains in NOS understanding?

(2) Does explicit-reflective NOS instruction contextualized within a content-driven

curriculum lead to student gains in NOS understanding?

(3) Are there pre- to post-instructional changes in NOS understanding between

students for whom NOS instruction was contextualized in SSI and students for

whom NOS instruction was contextualized in science content?

(4) Do students in the two treatment conditions provide qualitatively different

responses to NOS prompts? If so, what is the nature of those differences?

Methods

Context of Study

The current study originated as a collaboration between two science educators with

established records of research in SSI and an experienced high school science

teacher who was also a graduate student in science education. While the teacher

was comfortable and proficient with traditional methods of teaching, it is fair to say

he was both supportive yet skeptical of the SSI intervention (Zeidler, Applebaum,

& Sadler, 2011). Accordingly, the teacher had helped in preparing and delivering

the SSI curriculum and was, therefore, comfortable and proficient in its delivery.

The larger project focussed on three areas of research on SSI-learning environ-

ments in which little had been published: student development of reflective judgment,

Nature of Science in SSI 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

moral sensitivity, and NOS understanding. The researchers developed two curricular

sequences that featured explicit-reflective NOS instruction for an academic year-long

high school anatomy and physiology course. One curricular sequence (the SSI-driven

curriculum) was organized around a series of SSI with conceptual links to anatomy

and physiology. The content-driven curriculum was organized around anatomy and

physiology content. The lead researcher on this project maintained a close relation-

ship with the teacher, meeting weekly to discuss pedagogy after observing the

classroom and sometimes modeling activities. Multiple researchers were involved in

data collection, analysis, and interpretation.

Participants

Participants included students from four 11th and 12th grade Anatomy and Physi-

ology classes in a large, public, suburban high school in Florida. The school was

located in an upper middle class neighborhood where the majority of participants

lived. Few students of low socioeconomic status were represented in the sample.

Each class included 27–31 students and males and females were equally distributed.

The course was an elective with most students planning to attend college after gradu-

ation and some interested in pre-med majors. Two classes used the SSI-driven curri-

culum (the SSI group) and the other two classes used the content-driven curriculum

(the Content group). Classes were randomly assigned to condition and there was

no self-selection of students into conditions. The teacher, who contributed to the

design of both curricular sequences, taught all four classes.

NOS Instruction

The SSI and Content groups both received explicit-reflective NOS instruction.

Although we view SSI as providing many opportunities to discuss aspects of NOS

in relation to real-world situations (Zeidler et al., 2002), we also view NOS instruction

as compatible with a content-driven approach to teaching science, considering that

NOS aspects are central to understanding scientific processes and the origins of

scientific knowledge. In both the SSI and Content groups, NOS instruction included

explicit teaching through activities and demonstrations as well as making explicit

connections between NOS aspects and classroom content.

At the beginning of the year, both groups participated in a variety of stand-alone

NOS learning experiences (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 1998) including black

box activities and puzzle solving activities. The presence of one of the researchers

with his continuous feedback to the teacher confirmed and assured that the initial

explicit NOS instruction was virtually identical for all classes in each group. The

instructor explicitly introduced NOS aspects through these activities, and engaged

students in reflection on these experiences. As the semester progressed, the instructor

adopted more integrated approaches; he continually referred back to the foundational

NOS experiences and helped students to explore NOS themes in the context of

science content and/or SSI. For example, in the Content classes, students studied

8 J. L. Eastwood et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

cell biology. As a part of these experiences, the instructor drew explicit connections to

empirical bases for our current understanding of cell structure and function, high-

lighted how the field’s understanding of cells has changed over time, and discussed

how creative advancements in experimental design and technology mediated the

field’s evolving understanding. In the SSI classes, students studied cell biology

through exploration of issues associated with stem cell research. As in the Content

classes, the instructor highlighted ways in which understanding of cells (and stem

cells in particular) had changed as well as ways in which the creativity of scientists

and technologists has shaped this field. The SSI context also afforded opportunities

for students to critically examine ways in which science and society are mutually

influenced and shaped.

The SSI Group

For the SSI group, course content was embedded within a series of SSI. Kolstø’s

(2001) ‘content transcending’ themes informed the design of instruction for the treat-

ment group. These themes include (1) Science-in-the-making and the role of consen-

sus in science; (2) Science as one of several social domains; (3) Descriptive and

normative statements; (4) Demands for underpinning evidence; (5) Scientific

models as context-bound; (6) Scientific evidence; (7) Suspension of belief; and (8)

Scrutinizing science-related knowledge claims. Pedagogical strategies for decision-

making with SSI included establishing the difference between general and scientific

knowledge, establishing criteria for evidence, considering scenarios that may lead to

different conclusions, and considering moral consequences (Keefer, 2003; Pedretti,

1999; Ratcliffe, 1997; Ratcliffe & Grace, 2003).

The SSI framework established in this study was consistent with strategies to

advance students’ development of reflective judgment (Baxter Magolda, 1999;

Kegan, 1994; King & Baxter Magolda, 1996). Such strategies guided classroom

instruction and included showing respect for students’ ideas, including discussion

and resources for exploring different perspectives on ill-structured problems,

facilitating critical evaluation of different arguments on an issue, scaffolding

evidence-based decision-making, and explicitly addressing uncertainty and epistemo-

logical assumptions (King & Kitchener, 2002).

The researchers and teacher developed activities to facilitate student understanding

of both science concepts and the social context of the issues discussed. Figure 1 illus-

trates the SSI curriculum including interrelationships between content knowledge

and SSI contexts. Topics included controversial contemporary issues such as stem

cell research, euthanasia, fluoridation of public water supplies, safety of marijuana

use, and fast food and health. Units were designed to highlight the subjective,

theory-laden, empirical, creative and culturally embedded NOS. Class time was

spent in discussion, argumentation, role-play, small group activities, and research

into particular issues. Little time was spent in lectures and traditional lab activities.

Anticipated student outcomes included enhanced understanding of anatomy and

physiology content, improved argumentation and decision-making with SSI,

Nature of Science in SSI 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

Figure 1. Design of SSI curriculum

10 J. L. Eastwood et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

participation in scientific discourses, socio-moral development, and more informed

NOS conceptions. Although content gains (i.e. anatomy and physiology concepts)

were not a specific focus of the current study, we conducted analyses of content

understanding through examinations administered at the beginning and end of the

school year. The examinations focused on structure and function of all major organ

systems in the human body. We found the SSI group to have demonstrated more

positive changes in understanding of fundamental anatomy and physiology concepts

than the Content comparison group (Zeidler, Sadler, Applebaum, Callahan, &

Amiri, 2005).

The Content Group

The Content group was taught using a traditional, content-driven approach, where

course topics followed the organization of the textbook, covering the organ systems

of the human body. The topics included the organization of the human body into

cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems, with in-depth treatments of body systems

including skeletal, muscular, nervous, cardiovascular, respiratory, digestive, excre-

tory, and reproductive. Classroom activities included lectures, lab activities,

discussion of anatomy and physiology concepts, and completing worksheets.

The NOS aspects emphasized in the SSI group (subjective, theory-laden, empiri-

cal, creative, and culturally embedded NOS) were also emphasized in the Content

group. However, whereas explicit NOS connections to science were made in both

groups, the SSI group considered NOS themes to be contextualized and extracted

from contemporary issues, while the Content group explored NOS themes in the

context of research associated with anatomy and physiology content. While both

groups engaged in reflection and discussion of NOS, we recognize that students

experienced different learning activities. Therefore, our study addresses two different

types of learning contexts, not simply two different presentations of content. For both

the SSI and Content groups, intended student outcomes included knowledge of

anatomical form and function and more informed NOS conceptions.

Administration of the VNOS

Students in both the SSI and Content groups responded to the VNOS form C

(VNOS-C) prior to instruction and at the end of the academic year to provide pre

and post data points. VNOS is well established in terms of face and content validity,

and has been extensively used in research with various groups of students and teachers

(Lederman, 2007; Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002). VNOS-C

(Abd-El-Khalick, 1998) was adapted from prior VNOS forms (Abd-El-Khalick,

Bell, & Lederman, 1998; Lederman & O’Malley, 1990) to assess individuals’ under-

standing of target NOS aspects, including the tentative, creative, empirical, inferen-

tial, socially and culturally embedded, and theory-laden NOS as well as the

distinctions between theory and law and the myth of a single scientific method

(Lederman et al., 2002). Open-ended questions allowed students to elaborate on

Nature of Science in SSI 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

their understanding of NOS, and overlapping of target aspects among the questions

allowed researchers to generate profiles of students’ understanding of each aspect.

For example, the following questions are included in VNOS-C:

. After scientists have developed a scientific theory (e.g. atomic theory, evolution

theory), does the theory ever change?

. Science textbooks often define a species as a group of organisms that share similar

characteristics and can interbreed with one another to produce fertile offspring.

How certain are scientists about their characterization of what a species is? What

specific evidence do you think scientists use to determine what a species is?

Both questions could elicit responses on a range of target NOS concepts, including

the tentative, empirical, inferential, and theory-laden NOS. From the full set of

VNOS responses, researchers are able to develop inferences about participants’

conceptions of the target NOS aspects.

Data Collection and Analysis

Four researchers participated in the analysis of VNOS data. The teacher was not

involved in data analysis. All these researchers were familiar with exemplar coding

schemes for NOS aspects generally and VNOS data more specifically. To develop a

valid coding scheme for the particular context of the participants in this study, the

researchers initially engaged in independent inductive analysis of the data set to gen-

erate an emergent taxonomy that characterized the range of patterns observed in this

particular data set (Lederman et al., 2002; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Analysis of the

data proceeded in several distinct iterations. For each phase of coding, researchers

were blind to the group affiliations of participants. In the first round of review, the

researchers independently examined 12 sets of VNOS responses randomly sampled

from among the four classes including both pre- and post-instruction data. Based

on these reviews, the researchers identified six distinct NOS themes to examine

within the data sets: the empirical, tentative, creative, and social NOS along with dis-

tinctions between laws and theories and the use of scientific models. The researchers

also shared initial ideas for an emergent taxonomy for characterizing the diversity of

views observed within each of these aspects. The negotiation of intra-theme codes

continued through two more rounds of independent review of VNOS responses.

After these three iterations of review and negotiation, the researchers established a

coding system that included three ordinal categories for each NOS theme in addition

to a ‘no relevant response’ code. The ordinal categories were ‘informed’, ‘transi-

tional’, and ‘naı̈ve’. These categories and examples of student responses are presented

in Table 1. Two researchers then applied the emergent coding scheme to 10 tran-

scripts, which had not been previously examined, to calculate inter-rater reliability.

Based on these results, Cohen’s kappa was calculated at 0.91, indicating a high

level of inter-rater reliability. In the final iteration of this phase of analysis, the two

researchers applied the analytic codes to the rest of the data set.

12 J. L. Eastwood et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

Table 1. VNOS coding scheme with examples from student responses

Themes Informed Transitional Naive

Empirical Science is a process

which involves the

collection of data and

generation of inferences.

Science becomes a tool to

explain natural

phenomena

Science is a process that

leads to the closest

approximations of fact

and truth

Science is proven fact. It is

the way to know the right

and true answers

‘Science is the knowledge

and acquisition of

knowledge . . . it has the

stated aim to be unbiased

. . . however obviously

this is impossible . . .

Nonetheless, it is the

attempt towards

empirical explanations of

the world’

‘Science is learning from

our observations and

others’ observations . . .

Science may not be fact

but it is the best that

humans can do’

‘Science is answers to

questions we have about

the world. It gives us proof

and knowledge’

Tentative Scientific understanding

can change over time

given new evidence or

interpretations; however,

scientific understanding

is dependable

Scientific understanding

is uncertain and

changing. (A student

recognizes the tentative

NOS but does not

acknowledge the

dependability or

usefulness of scientific

knowledge)

Scientific understanding is

certain and unchanging

‘Theories change

because of new

technological

developments and

influence of differing

scientific opinions.

However, it is still

necessary to learn

theories to gain current

knowledge’

‘Science is always

changing . . . Theories are

constantly changing’

‘They [scientific theories]

definitely do not change. A

theory is something that’s

been proven time and time

again by numerous people

and when done the correct

way, it always turns out

with the same results’

Creative Creativity and

imagination play

significant roles

throughout scientific

practices.

Creativity and

imagination play roles

only in specified areas of

scientific practices.

Science has no room for

creativity or imagination.

‘Scientists do use

creativity & imagination

to resolve problems that

come up with planning &

design . . . Also the need

‘I believe that scientists

must use imagination in

order to find ways to test

a hypothesis and to find a

hypothesis in the first

‘I believe that ideally

scientists would stick to

only what the data said and

not add their own

(Continued)

Nature of Science in SSI 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

Table 1. Continued

Themes Informed Transitional Naive

to come up with new

approaches and figuring

out what the results tell

us’

place. I don’t think,

however, that

imagination is used in

finding data or stating a

conclusion. A conclusion

must be a fact’

[imagination and

creativity]

Social/

cultural

Personal, social and

cultural influences shape

science and the ways

scientists interpret data

and arrive at conclusions

Scientists may be

personally influenced by

social and cultural

factors, but science as an

enterprise is insulated

from these influences

Science is insulated from

social and cultural

influences

‘Science is definitely

reflected by social and

cultural values. First of

all some people don’t

even question things . . .’

‘I guess its [a scientific

conclusion is related to]

how you perceive the

data, and what you base it

on . . . I think science is

universal. . . And that

once proved, political

wishes have nothing to do

with theories . . .’

‘I would say it [science] is

universal . . . It is not so

much influenced by social,

political and philosophical

values’

Theory

and law

Theories and laws are

unique representations of

scientific understanding

because theories explain

complex phenomena

while laws describe

consistent regularities

Theories are explanatory

in nature but the primary

distinction relates to the

fact that laws are proven

and unchanging

Theories can become laws

when enough data is

collected

‘A scientific theory is a

possible explanation for

something, which can be

proven false. A scientific

law, however, is more . . .

it’s like Newton’s laws of

motion and the law of

gravity . . .’

‘There is a difference

between scientific theory

and scientific law.

Scientific theory is test an

idea that makes sense to

most people and is widely

accepted. Scientific law is

always a definite and can

always be proven . . .’

‘A theory can become a

law after it is sufficiently

tested and is proven true’.

Scientific

models

Scientific models are

based on data and

inferences and are useful

for understanding or

predicting phenomena.

They represent abstract

ideas. Multiple models of

the same content/context

are possible and useful

Scientific models are

based on data and

inferences and are useful

because they present

concrete representations

of phenomena. There is a

best model but this may

change over time given

new data

Scientific models are visual

or concrete representations

of reality (one-to-one

correspondence). Science

has a best model for

phenomena

(Continued)

14 J. L. Eastwood et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

Pre-instruction NOS conceptions, designated as proportions of students at each

rating, were compared by NOS themes for the SSI and Content groups using

Fisher’s exact tests. Within-theme changes from pre- to post-instruction assessments

were determined for each group using a Wilcoxon signed rank test. Pre to post

changes for the SSI and Content groups were compared for each NOS aspect using

the Mann–Whitney U test. We used an alpha level of 0.05 for all statistical tests,

which we consider to be conservative based on the small sample size.

Results

Analysis of the pre-instruction VNOS questionnaire data revealed that the SSI and

Content groups were not significantly different in their levels of NOS understanding

prior to instruction (see Table 2). After instruction, both SSI and Content groups

showed significant gains in each aspect of NOS with the exception of the social/

cultural NOS for the Content group and the scientific models category for the SSI

group. In these two cases, students demonstrated gains, but the gains were not

interpreted to be statistically significant at an alpha of ,0.05 (see Table 3).

However, given the relatively small sample size and the fact that the two p values in

question were 0.05 (social/cultural NOS for the Content group) and 0.06 (scientific

models category for the SSI group), it would be inappropriate to draw extensive

inferences from these slight deviations from the otherwise consistent patterns seen

in both groups. Comparing pre to post gains between groups revealed no significant

differences between the SSI and Content groups (see Table 4).

The fourth research question called for a qualitative analysis of potential differences

in the ways in which the SSI and Content groups responded to the VNOS prompts.

Research questions 1–3 focussed on pre- to post-instructional changes, and changes

were documented through the ordinal rubric presented in Table 1. This particular

approach to analysis was appropriate to the first three research questions but some-

what limited with respect to documenting the full range of differences between

Table 1. Continued

Themes Informed Transitional Naive

‘The phylum, genus,

species system is just

what it implies—a

system. This system

was manmade and thus is

likely less than perfect’

‘I don’t think scientists

are positive that atoms

look the way they are

drawn. Atoms are too

small to see even under a

microscope, so scientists

take information that

they do know and apply it

to a shape they think

would be best for the

structure’

‘I’m relatively certain

that scientists are sure

that the atom exists with all

the aforementioned parts

. . .’

Nature of Science in SSI 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

VNOS responses provided by students in the two groups. Hence, the fourth research

question prescribed a more open-ended analysis that enabled our team to explore

differences between the groups not captured in the rubric created for the other

parts of the analysis.

There were no discernible differences between the groups on the pre-instruction

NOS assessment. Individual students certainly varied with respect to the kinds of

responses they provided, but we did not observe any differences that varied systema-

tically by instructional group. In analysis of the post-instruction responses, we noticed

differences in the ways in which students used specific examples to support their

discussion of VNOS questions. We made this observation during the iterative quali-

tative review process during which the reviewers were unaware of the respondents’

Table 2. Pre-instruction VNOS results for SSI and content groups

Content (%)

(n ¼ 35)

SSI (%)

(n ¼ 43)

p-Value

(Fisher’s exact test)

Empirical

Informed 0 2 0.45

Transitional 17 26

Naive 66 49

No response 17 23

Tentative

Informed 31 30 1.00

Transitional 51 51

Naive 14 14

No response 3 5

Creative

Informed 23 40 0.29

Transitional 40 37

Naive 11 12

No response 26 12

Socially/culturally

embedded

Informed 29 30 0.54

Transitional 9 16

Naive 31 19

No response 31 35

Theory and law

Informed 0 0 0.37

Transitional 17 7

Naive 77 84

No response 6 9

Models

Informed 0 2 0.92

Transitional 17 14

Naive 46 51

No response 37 33

16 J. L. Eastwood et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

Table 3. Within group pre- to post-instructional changes in VNOS results

Content

p-Value (Wilcoxon

signed-rank test) SSI

p-Value (Wilcoxon

signed-rank test)

Empirical

N 26 0.005 32 0.003

Mean 0.62 0.56

SD 0.94 0.91

Median 1 0

Tentative

N 34 0.007 39 0.006

Mean 0.41 0.38

SD 0.78 0.78

Median 0 0

Creative

N 21 0.006 35 0.001

Mean 0.62 0.51

SD 0.80 0.82

Median 1 0

Socially/culturally

embedded

N 21 0.050 27 0.009

Mean 0.57 0.52

SD 1.1 0.89

Median 0 0

Theory and law

N 32 0.009 38 0.007

Mean 0.41 0.37

SD 0.76 0.75

Median 0 0

Models

N 20 0.030 24 0.060

Mean 0.40 0.38

SD 0.68 0.88

Median 0 0

Table 4. Between group pre to post changes for aspects of NOS

p-Value

(Mann–Whitney U test)

Empirical 0.87

Tentative 0.81

Creative 0.55

Socially/culturally embedded 0.80

Theory and law 0.63

Models 0.95

Nature of Science in SSI 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

group affiliations. In order to determine whether the variation in the use of examples

varied by group (SSI and Content), we revealed group affiliation for approximately

half of the sample and re-examined the VNOS responses with a more fine-grained

analysis than typically done when only looking for indicators of NOS tenets, paying

particular attention to the use of contextualized examples subsuming NOS tenets.

We did detect systematic differences in how students from the two groups used

examples on one particular item that targeted learner views on social and cultural

NOS. The item prompt is listed here:

Some claim that science is infused with social and cultural values. That is, science reflects

the social and political values, philosophical assumptions, and intellectual norms of the

culture in which it is practiced. Others claim that science is universal. That is, science

transcends national and cultural boundaries and is not affected by social, political, and

philosophical values, and intellectual norms of the culture in which it is practiced. If

you believe that science reflects social and cultural values, explain why. Defend your

answer with examples. If you believe that science is universal, explain why. Defend

your answer with examples.

After identifying this particular item as a source of potential difference between the

groups, we initiated another round of open coding with group affiliation blinded. We

developed an emergent coding scheme to systematically characterize potential differ-

ences in the use of examples. We found three distinct patterns: (1) respondents effec-

tively used examples to support their perspectives on the social and cultural NOS, (2)

students discussed examples but the examples were either inaccurate or irrelevant to

the perspective being advocated, and (3) students provided a response that did not

feature examples. Within the first group, we observed students using examples to

demonstrate three different perspectives on the interactions of science and society:

(a) students discussed examples of how social and cultural values influence scientists

and the work they do, (b) students used examples to illustrate how social and cultural

values influence citizen’s views of science, and (c) a couple of students presented

examples as a means of demonstrating the universality of science. In the case of

group (c), students were reporting a non-normative view of science, but they did

so with a legitimate example that supported their espoused view. Table 5 presents

each of these categories and exemplar quotations along with the proportion of stu-

dents from each group who demonstrated the corresponding pattern. As evidenced

in Table 5, a greater proportion of students in the SSI group used examples to

strengthen their presentation of their perspectives related to how science is socially

and culturally influenced. A post hoc chi square analysis indicated that the group

differences were not statistically significant; however, given the relatively small

sample size, we believe that these results highlight a potentially important trend

that warrants further investigation.

Discussion

Research on NOS supports the conclusion that most learners do not have adequate

understanding of NOS. However, there is evidence to suggest that explicit-reflective

18 J. L. Eastwood et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

approaches to NOS instruction can promote students’ development of more informed

NOS understanding. SSI provide excellent contexts for explicit-reflective NOS

instruction in their numerous opportunities to exemplify aspects of NOS. SSI contexts

highlight conflicting evidence, different interpretations of data, and alternative per-

spectives. Such problems lend themselves to discussions of scientific knowledge as

empirically based, inferential, tentative, subjective, creative, and influenced by social

and cultural factors. For example, in a unit on the SSI of stem cell research, sociocul-

tural characteristics of NOS may be discussed when considering how legislation and

moral concerns of scientists and society influence embryonic stem cell research.

Creative aspects may be discussed in the possibilities envisioned for new treatments

for diverse conditions and diseases. Tentative features may be considered in examining

a timeline of discoveries, advances, and pitfalls in stem cell research, while empirical

qualities may be deliberated when comparing and contrasting evidence for the

usefulness of embryonic stem cells versus adult stem cells for treating disease.

This study documents learning environments in which explicit-reflective NOS

instruction was contextualized in an entirely SSI-based science course and another

Table 5. Student use of examples to justify positions related to the cultural and social NOS

Content

(n ¼ 36)

SSI

(n ¼ 38) Exemplar quotation

Uses appropriate

examples

Examples of the

social and cultural

NOS

14 (39%) 23 (61%) Science definitely reflects social and cultural

values. Prime example: USA. President Bush

has ended the research of stems cells due to

his own personal and religious beliefs. As a

result, science cannot develop its capacity in

the field of stem cells. Thus, philosophical

values have affected science

Examples of the

universality of science

2 (6%) 0 (0%) I think it [science] is universal because no

matter where you do research, like let’s say

I was to conduct research on the stars.

Whether I was in Florida or China the stars

are still going to look the same and get the

same results

Uses inaccurate or

irrelevant example

3 (8%) 2 (5%) I believe that science is universal but in some

cases it is influenced by social and cultural

values. For example, the food that people eat

can be influenced by social or cultural values

Does not use examples 17 (47%) 13 (34%) If science was pure then it would be

universal, but, because we are human, there

is sociocultural influence in science. It is very

difficult to think completely objectively and

to detach oneself from core beliefs/opinions.

Social [and] cultural values influence all of us

and are inevitably reflected in science

Nature of Science in SSI 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

in a more traditional content-driven course. Based on our results, we cannot conclus-

ively support SSI- or content-driven contexts as more effective in promoting gains in

students’ formal conceptions of NOS. However, our findings indicate that SSI contexts

are as effective as content-driven ones in promoting more informed conceptions of

NOS. This study adds support to previous studies suggesting that SSI are effective

contexts for improving students’ NOS views (Khishfe & Lederman, 2006; Matkins

& Bell, 2007; Walker & Zeidler, 2007) and that NOS instruction integrated in SSI

is at least equally effective as NOS instruction delivered through de-contextualized

activities that are unrelated to SSI (Bell et al., 2011; Khishfe and Lederman, 2006).

This study confirms results generated in previous work, but it extends those find-

ings because of its longitudinal nature. Until now, efforts to embed NOS instruction

in SSI have been limited to relatively short-term units. The current study extends over

an entire school year; the fact that similar results were found in such a lengthy study

suggests that the previously found gains could persist beyond short treatments. This

study offers important insights into the sustainability of benefits associated with

SSI-based education. In the current era of ‘accountability’, in which teachers hesitate

to ‘add’ anything to their curricula in fear that it will detract from their students’

abilities to master standards-based content (including NOS ideas), the findings of

this study have pragmatic importance. Focussing on SSI in classrooms does not

have to be considered an add-on: teachers can contextualize instruction in SSI and

support important NOS learning gains among their students.

From a conceptual perspective, it seems plausible that embedding NOS instruction

in SSI could be particularly effective in promoting sophisticated notions of the social

and cultural NOS. By definition, SSI showcase interactions between science and

society and provide natural opportunities for learners to reflect on ways in which

science and society are mutually constitutive in terms of their influences. We noted

that in the post-instruction instrument, as Table 5 indicates, students in the SSI

group used socioscientific examples more frequently to support their responses, par-

ticularly in areas connected to social and cultural concepts of NOS (61% to 39%). For

example, these students commonly referred to political influences and societal interest

in stem cell research, genetic engineering, and AIDS research. In contrast, their peers

in the Content group invoked examples of any kind less frequently. This result was

not found to be statistically significant, but shows potential for further research.

We inferred that the SSI group was more likely to provide examples of science as

socially and culturally embedded because their instruction highlighted a series of

specific issues where social factors were discussed, debated, and reflected upon.

With this inference, we recognize that features of the learning environment, such as

engagement in argumentation and debate, could be significant factors in this result

as well as the issues around which instruction was built. In our analysis, we found

that the SSI group was more likely to provide examples that were both specific and

accurate as compared to the Content group (see Table 5). Our finding suggests that

SSI may enhance understanding of the social/cultural NOS by providing students

with accessible examples that help them articulate and reflect upon aspects of

NOS, and that further research could be fruitful. Future studies should investigate

20 J. L. Eastwood et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

how SSI-based education affects student understanding of the social and cultural

aspects of NOS in addition to ways in which students apply knowledge from instruc-

tional examples or cases to new SSI contexts.

The Assessment of NOS Understanding in SSI Contexts

Considering that VNOS prompts are primarily decontextualized, it is possible that

explicit-reflective NOS instruction contextualized in SSI promotes development of

NOS understanding that we were unable to detect. Sandoval (2005) notes several

limitations of assessments of science epistemologies, similar to VNOS, such as

abstract questions and responses that tend to be short and ambiguous. Existing

instruments to assess NOS conceptions primarily target students’ understanding of

formal science. Sandoval differentiates formal epistemology, which includes ideas

about scientific knowledge and formal scientific practice, from practical epistemology,

which includes students’ ideas about how they produce knowledge in school science.

Essentially, Sandoval asserts that the epistemological views students hold about

formal science are different from the views they hold about how they do science.

Therefore, an assessment targeting formal epistemology may not fully capture

students’ understanding of NOS.

Additionally, several scholars have theorized that students’ epistemologies are

context-dependent. Hammer and Elby (2002) view epistemologies as collections of

‘resources’ called upon in particular contexts. Several research studies report that

students’ NOS conceptions are inconsistent among different contexts (Hammer,

1994; Roth & Roychoudhury, 1994; Sandoval & Morrison, 2003; Solomon, Duveen,

& Scott, 1994). Leach, Millar, Ryder, and Sere (2000) found that open-ended survey

responses varied between contextualized and de-contextualized questions. The majority

of the VNOS prompts we used to assess students’ NOS views were de-contextualized,

although some provided examples from science content. An assessment contextualized

in socially relevant science-related situations could provide more insight into

students’ NOS conceptions that are called upon in SSI contexts.

Sandoval (2005) discussed possibilities for assessing practical epistemologies as

students are engaged in scientific processes. For example, Driver, Leach, Millar,

and Scott (1996) and Leach, Driver, Millar, and Scott (1997) used interview

protocols to probe students’ epistemologies while students were engaged in problem

solving. Perhaps an instrument that would allow the researcher to probe ideas in the

context of SSI activities, where students can draw upon their existing knowledge,

would be more fruitful for exploring links between NOS and SSI.

Some existing research has examined students’ articulation of NOS views in the

context of SSI, although most of those studies do not assess changes in NOS views

before and after instruction. Several studies have shown that students do effectively

apply NOS views in decision-making with SSI (Sadler et al., 2002; Zeidler et al.,

2002), although Walker & Zeidler (2007) found that students did not spontaneously

incorporate discussion of NOS into a debate activity. Matkins and Bell (2007)

provided qualitative evidence of students’ changes toward greater sophistication of

Nature of Science in SSI 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

NOS views as contextualized in SSI after an SSI-based unit with explicit-reflective

NOS instruction. Students applied observations and inferences to scientists’ descrip-

tion and explanation of global warming (GW) and discussed the idea that scientists

held different perspectives on the danger of GW due to different inferences from the

same data. Students also noted that study of GCC/GW changed their views of

science, citing the subjective, tentative, and socially/culturally embedded NOS.

Additionally, although Bell et al. (2011) found that there were no differences in

NOS gains as assessed by VNOS-B between pre-service teachers who experienced

explicit-reflective teaching in an SSI context and those who experienced NOS as a

stand-alone topic, they found that when NOS instruction was connected to an SSI

context, students were better able to apply understanding of subjectivity, evidence,

and consensus in decision-making with SSI. Our finding that students who received

explicit-reflective NOS instruction in SSI were more likely to explain the social/

cultural NOS using examples also suggests that context is important to students’

articulation of NOS views.

Possibilities for Assessing NOS Contextualized in SSI

More research is needed to better understand how SSI-based learning environments

may promote NOS understanding and whether NOS instruction contextualized in

SSI may provide different outcomes in students’ understanding of NOS. Different

methods of assessing NOS conceptions may be designed, which are sensitive to

relevant sociomoral contexts and align with the scientific literacy goals of NOS instruc-

tion in SSI-learning environments in more nuanced ways. Sandoval’s (2005) sugges-

tions for research on practical epistemologies, such as prompted recall interviews or

questions on students’ reasoning where epistemological ideas are likely to come into

play hold promise. Allchin (2011) presents a prototypical method for assessing NOS

understanding in historical and contemporary SSI contexts, called ‘Knowledge of

the Nature of Whole Science (KNOWS)’. The assessment engages students in analysis

of socioscientific cases, such as the debated link between vaccines and autism, and

examines their ability to identify relevant NOS concepts and relate them to their

interpretation of the reliability of claims. Allchin reframes NOS from a consensus

list to a set of dimensions that encompass contextually dependent conceptions of

NOS. In analyzing such an assessment, student profiles may be developed using

rubrics based on the proposed NOS inventory, and these may be adapted to quantitat-

ive indexes. These types of careful, in-depth examinations, though time consuming,

have potential to form foundations for alternative valid instruments that may be

used on a larger scale.

Conclusions

This study adds evidence to the few existing studies on NOS learning in SSI, finding

that SSI-based learning environments can provide effective contexts for improving

students’ NOS conceptions. Using the VNOS questionnaire, we found that

22 J. L. Eastwood et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

explicit-reflective NOS instruction promoted NOS gains in both SSI-based and

content-based contexts, although the gains were not significantly different between

the two groups. The important point here is that purposeful pedagogy entailing

SSI, in addition to engaging students to consider multiple perspectives of ethical

concerns, affords opportunities to explore important features of NOS that are

contextualized crossroads of scientific inquiry and humanity. Because epistemological

views appear context-dependent, measuring NOS conceptions within learning

contexts may shed light on how different types of learning contexts influence those

conceptions. Considering that reasons cited for teaching NOS predominantly relate

to preparing students to make informed and ethical decisions on science and

technology issues, new assessments should examine NOS views in these kinds of

decision-making contexts.

Finally, we offer a caveat. Employing an academic year-long SSI curriculum would,

no doubt, present a challenge for the best of teachers. Therefore, one may question the

extent to which teachers may be able to implement an SSI curriculum (let alone one

coupled with explicit NOS outcomes) without the support of a team of researchers.

These issues have recently been addressed in some detail (see: Zeidler, Bell, Sadler,

& Eastwood, 2011; Zeidler, Applebaum, & Sadler, 2011). Suffice it to say that

progressive teachers, who are willing to take calculated risks, can take first steps to

begin implementing aspects of an SSI-focussed curriculum. As teachers begin to tap

into their own ability to draw out connections from social and ethical issues back to

the scientific content at hand, they can build confidence in their ability to promote

students’ use of evidence-based data to form deeper conceptual understanding of

scientific information. This goes beyond the rather ineffective skill of merely pointing

out science-technology-society-type connections to social issues when only teaching in

a more conventional manner. Teachers will need to use more of their experiential

worldly knowledge to effectively navigate students through a maze of data, misinfor-

mation, and passions. However, there is no reason why SSI cannot be blended with

conventional instruction so that the transformative pedagogy required for meaningful

epistemological development connected to SSI curricula can be developed in a

systemic manner over time.

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Cyndi Garvan, Associate Scholar and Statistics Director in the

UF College of Education, for her contributions to the statistical analysis for this study.

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students’ conceptions of the nature

of science (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR).

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Socio-scientific issues in pre-college classrooms. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.),

The role of moral reasoning on socio-scientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 41–62).

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Nature of Science in SSI 23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Lederman, N.G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional

practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417–437.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that

promote understandings of the nature of science. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of

science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the

nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education,

22, 665–701.

Akerson, V.L., Abd-El-Khalick, F.S., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). The influence of a reflective

activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal

of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295–317.

Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social con-

siderations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussion on a socio-scientific issue.

Research in Science Education, 38, 67–90.

Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95,

518–542.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all

Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Barab, S.A., Barnett, M.G., & Squire, K. (2002). Developing an empirical account of a

community of practice: Characterizing the essential tensions. Journal of the Learning Sciences,

11, 489–542.

Barber, M. (2001). A comparison of NEAB and salters A-level chemistry: Students views and achieve-

ments. York: University of York.

Barker, V., & Millar, R. (1996). Differences between salters’ and traditional A-level chemistry students’

understanding of basic chemical ideas. York: University of York.

Baxter Magolda, M.B. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-author(s)ship: Constructive-

developmental pedagogy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Bell, P., & Linn, M.C. (2000). Scientific argumentations as learning artifacts: Designing for learning

from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797–817.

Bell, R.L., & Lederman, N.G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making

on science- and technology-based issues. Science Education, 87, 352–377.

Bell, R.L., Matkins, J.J., & Gansneder, B.M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction

on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, 48, 414–436.

Bennett, J., Grasel, C., Parchmann, I., & Waddington, D. (2005). Context-based and conventional

approaches to teaching chemistry: Comparing teachers’ views. International Journal of Science

Education, 27, 1521–1547.

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.

Educational Researcher, 18, 34–41.

Bulte, A.M.W., Westbroek, H.B., de Jong, O., & Pilot, A. (2006). A research approach to designing

chemistry education using authentic practices as contexts. International Journal of Science

Education, 28, 1063–1086.

Dori, Y.J., Tal, R., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies: Can we

improve higher-order thinking skills of non-science majors. Science Education, 87, 767–793.

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Bristol, PA: Open

University Press.

Feinstein, N. (2010). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95, 168–185.

Gee, J.P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge.

Greeno, J.G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learningand research. AmericanPsychologist, 53, 5–26.

24 J. L. Eastwood et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12,

151–183.

Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B.K. Hofer &

P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and

knowing (pp. 169–190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Harris, R., & Ratcliffe, M. (2005). Socio-scientific issues and the quality of exploratory talk what can

be learned from schools involved in a ‘collapsed day’ project? Curriculum Journal, 16, 439–453.

Keefer, M.W. (2003). Moral reasoning and case-based approaches to ethical instruction in science.

In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science

education (pp. 241–259). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit

inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, 39, 551–578.

Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N.G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic:

Integrated versus non-integrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 395–318.

Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N.G. (2007). Relationship between instructional context and views of

nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 939–961.

King, P.M., & Baxter Magolda, M.B. (1996). A developmental perspective on learning. Journal of

College Student Development, 37, 163–173.

King, P.M., & Kitchener, K.S. (2002). The reflective judgment model: Twenty years of research on

epistemic cognition. In B.K. Hofer & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology

of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 37–61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Inc.

Klosterman, M.L., & Sadler, T.D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge

gains associated with socioscientific issues based instruction. International Journal of Science

Education, 32, 1017–1043.

Kolstø, S.D. (2001). ‘To trust or not to trust, . . .’ Pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in

a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 877–901.

Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science

Education, 80, 673–689.

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine, & S.D.

Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63–84). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Leach, J., Driver, R., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1997). A study of progression in learning about ‘the

nature of science’: Issues of conceptualisation and methodology. International Journal of

Science Education, 19, 147–166.

Leach, J., Millar, R., Ryder, J., & Sere, M.G. (2000). Epistemological understanding in science

learning: The consistency of representations across contexts. Learning and Instruction, 10,

497–527.

Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of

the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 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. 831–880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Lederman, N.G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that

promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science

in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Nature of Science in SSI 25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R.S. (2002). Views of nature of

science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of

nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521.

Lederman, N.G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Devel-

opment, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225–239.

Lee, M.K., & Erdogan, I. (2007). The effect of science-technology-society teaching on students’

attitudes toward science and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal of Science

Education, 11, 1315–1327.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Linn, M.C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J.D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science

Education, 87, 517–538.

Matkins, J.J., & Bell, R.L. (2007). Awakening the scientist inside: Global climate change and the

nature of science in an elementary science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education,

18, 137–163.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National

Academic Press.

Parchmann, I., Grasel, C., Baer, A., Nentwig, P., Demuth, R., & Ralle, B. (2006). ‘Chemie im

Kontext’: A symbiotic implementation of a context-based teaching and learning approach.

International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1041–1062.

Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social

responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science

and Mathematics, 99, 174–181.

Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupils’ decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science

curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 167–182.

Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues.

Buckingham: Open University Press.

Roberts, D.A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.),

Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Roth, W.M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Physics students’ epistemologies and views about

knowing and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 5–30.

Rubba, P., & Andersen, H. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary students’

understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62, 449–458.

Ryan, A.G., & Aikenhead, G.S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of

science. Science Education, 76, 559–580.

Sadler, T.D., Chambers, W.F., & Zeidler, D. (2002). Investigating the crossroads of socioscientific issues,

the nature of science, and critical thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National

Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Sadler, T.D., Chambers, F.W., & Zeidler, D.L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of

science in response to a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26,

387–409.

Sadler, T.D., Barab, S.A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific

inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371–391.

Sadler, T.D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for

practice. Studies in Science Education, 45, 1–42.

Sadler, T.D. (2011). Socioscientific issues-based education: What we know about science education

in the context of SSI. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.) Socio-scientific issues in science classrooms: Teaching,

learning and research (pp. 277–306). New York: Springer.

Sandoval, W.A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on

learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634–656.

Sandoval, W.A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory

change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 369–392.

26 J. L. Eastwood et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12

Schwartz, R.S., Lederman, N.G., & Crawford, B.A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science

in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science

and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–645.

Solomon, J., Duveen, J., & Scott, L. (1994). Pupils’ images of scientific epistemology. International

Journal of Science Education, 16, 361–373.

Tal, R., & Hochberg, N. (2003). Assessing high order thinking of students participating in the

‘WISE’ project in Israel. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29, 69–89.

Tal, T., & Kedmi, Y. (2006). Teaching socio-scientific issues: Classroom culture and students’

performances. Cultural Studies in Science, 1, 615–644.

Walker, K.A., & Zeidler, D.L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socio-scientific issues through

scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1387–1410.

Yager, S.O., Lim, G., & Yager, R. (2006). The advantages of an STS approach over a typical

textbook dominated approach in middle school science. School Science and Mathematics, 106,

248–260.

Zeidler, D.L., Walker, K.A., Ackett, W.A., & Simmons, M.L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs

in the nature of science and responses to socio-scientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86,

343–367.

Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Applebaum, S., Callahan, B., & Amiri L. (2005, April). Socioscientific

issues in secondary school science: Students’ epistemological conceptions of content, NOS, and

ethical sensitivity. Paper presented at the 78th Annual Meeting of the National Association for

Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.

Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B.E. (2009). Advancing reflective

judgment through socio-scientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 74–101.

Zeidler, D.L., Applebaum, S.M., & Sadler, T.D. (2011). Enacting a socioscientific issues classroom:

Transformative transformations. In T.D. Sadler (Ed.) Socio-scientific issues in science classrooms:

Teaching, learning and research (pp. 277–306). New York: Springer.

Zeidler, D.L., Bell, R.L., Sadler, T.D., & Eastwood, J.L. (2011). Metalogue: Enacting a socio-

scientific issues classroom: Transformative transformations. In T.D. Sadler (Ed.) Socio-scientific

issues in science classrooms: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 307–312). New York: Springer.

Zeidler, D.L. & Sadler, D.L. (2011). An inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues and future

directions of socioscientific reasoning. In C. Linder, L. Ostman, D.A. Roberts, P. Wickman,

G. Erickson, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in

transaction (pp. 176–192). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through

dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.

Nature of Science in SSI 27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dan

a Z

eidl

er]

at 1

5:04

23

Apr

il 20

12