preservice teachers’ views about nature of scientific knowledge development: an international...

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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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


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”


(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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/ogretmen/

Ling L. Liang

Department of EducationLa Salle UniversityPhiladelphia, PA, 19141, USAE-mail: [email protected]

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


preservice teachers’ views about nature of scientific knowledge development: an international...

Documents