Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education

Contextualisation of factual knowledge in genetics: A pre- and post- survey of undergraduates’ understanding of the Nature of Science
Imme Petersen 1 * , Stephanie Herzog 2, Corinna Bath 1, André Fleißner 2
More Detail
1 Institute of Flight Guidance, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany
2 Institute of Genetics, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany
* Corresponding Author
Research Article

Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 2020 - Volume 16 Issue 2, Article No: e2215
https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/7816

Published Online: 26 Feb 2020

Views: 406 | Downloads: 211

How to cite this article
APA 6th edition
In-text citation: (Petersen et al., 2020)
Reference: Petersen, I., Herzog, S., Bath, C., & Fleißner, A. (2020). Contextualisation of factual knowledge in genetics: A pre- and post- survey of undergraduates’ understanding of the Nature of Science. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 16(2), e2215. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/7816
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Petersen I, Herzog S, Bath C, Fleißner A. Contextualisation of factual knowledge in genetics: A pre- and post- survey of undergraduates’ understanding of the Nature of Science. Int J Env Sci Ed. 2020;16(2):e2215. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/7816
AMA 10th edition
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Petersen I, Herzog S, Bath C, Fleißner A. Contextualisation of factual knowledge in genetics: A pre- and post- survey of undergraduates’ understanding of the Nature of Science. Int J Env Sci Ed. 2020;16(2), e2215. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/7816
Chicago
In-text citation: (Petersen et al., 2020)
Reference: Petersen, Imme, Stephanie Herzog, Corinna Bath, and André Fleißner. "Contextualisation of factual knowledge in genetics: A pre- and post- survey of undergraduates’ understanding of the Nature of Science". Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education 2020 16 no. 2 (2020): e2215. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/7816
Harvard
In-text citation: (Petersen et al., 2020)
Reference: Petersen, I., Herzog, S., Bath, C., and Fleißner, A. (2020). Contextualisation of factual knowledge in genetics: A pre- and post- survey of undergraduates’ understanding of the Nature of Science. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 16(2), e2215. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/7816
MLA
In-text citation: (Petersen et al., 2020)
Reference: Petersen, Imme et al. "Contextualisation of factual knowledge in genetics: A pre- and post- survey of undergraduates’ understanding of the Nature of Science". Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, vol. 16, no. 2, 2020, e2215. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/7816
ABSTRACT
Having an adequate understanding of the Nature of Science (NOS) is an integral part of scientific literacy. However, NOS is usually not yet explicitly embedded in the science curricula at German universities. To fill this gap, we have introduced NOS elements in the undergraduate course on genetics at the biology department of an Institute of Technology in North-western Germany in summer semester 2018. The strategy used an exclusive-reflective approach by emphasising socio-scientific issues. As Kostas Kampourakis (2016) suggests, our design considers not only general aspects of the NOS concept, but also the family resemblance approach presented by Erduran and Dagher (2014). To evaluate changes in students’ NOS understanding, we did a pre- and post-survey about their NOS understanding following the SUSSI questionnaire designed by Liang et al. (2008). The NOS understanding of the 93 participants shows statistically significant improvement in 14 out of 24 items (58,3%) after the teaching unit, compared to the pre-survey. While the pre-survey shows a larger gap of understanding regarding the relations of environment, theory, and law, the post-test results show significant effects on learning, in particular regarding subjective, social, and cultural influences on science. However, the students’ understanding regarding the relations of environment, theory, and law still remains weak. The findings indicate that some preconceptions were not as amenable to change as others. In particular, the assumed facticity of scientific knowledge seems to be a powerful preconception that is much more firmly fixed than the contextualization of scientific discovery.
KEYWORDS
REFERENCES
  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2006). Over and over again: college students’ views of nature of science. In L.B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science: Implications for Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education (pp. 389-426). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science & Education, 22(9), 2087-2107.
  • 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(4), 417-436.
  • 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. (2005). ‘‘How should I know what scientists do?—I am just a kid’’: Fourth-grade students’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 17(1), 1-11.
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2007). Atlas of science literacy. Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Bybee, R. W., & McCrae, B. J. (2011). Scientific literacy and student attitudes: Perspectives from PISA 2006 Science, International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 7-26.
  • Chen, S., Chang, W.-H., Lieu, S.-C., Kao, H.-L., Huang, M.-T., &Lin, S.-F. (2013). Development of an empirically based questionnaire to investigate young students’ ideas about nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(4). 408-430.
  • Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 15(5), 463-494.
  • Campanile, M. F., Lederman, N. G. & Kampourakis, K. (2015). Mendelian genetics as a platform for teaching about nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science & Education, 24, 205-225.
  • Dagher, Z. R., & BouJaoude, S. (1997). Scientific views and religious beliefs of college students: The case of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 429-445.
  • Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science Education: Why Does it Matter?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 147-164.
  • De Castro, M. (2016). Johann Gregor Mendel: Paragon of experimental science. Molecular Genetics and Genomics Medicine, 4(1), 3-8. doi:10.1002/mgg3.199
  • Desaulniers Miller, M. C., Montplaisir, L. M., Offerdahl, E. G., Cheng, F.-C., & Ketterling, G. L. (2010). Comparison of views of the nature of science between natural science and nonscience majors. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 9, 45-54.
  • Dogan, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish grade 10 students’ and science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A national study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083-1112.
  • Erduran S. (2017). Visualizing the nature of science: Beyond textual pieces to holistic images in science education. In K. Hahl, K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, A. Uitto & J. Lavonen (eds), Cognitive and Affective Aspects in Science Education Research. Contributions from Science Education Research, vol 3. (pp. 15-30). Dordrecht: Springer. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58685-4_2
  • Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Erduran, S., Dagher, Z.R. & McDonald, C.V. (2019). Contributions of the family resemblance approach to nature of science in science education. Science & Education 28, 311-328, doi:10.1007/s11191-019-00052-2
  • Erduran, S., Kaya, E., & Dagher, Z. (2018). From lists in pieces to coherent wholes: Nature of science, scientific practices, and science teacher education. In J. Yeo, T. W. Teo & K. S. Tang (Eds.), Research and Practice in the Asia-Pacific Region (pp.3-24), Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Erduran, S., Kaya, E., & Avraamidou, L. (in press). Does research on nature of science and social justice intersect? Exploring theoretical and practical convergence for science education. In H. Yacoubian & L. Hansson (Eds.), Nature of Science for Social Justice. Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Hanuscin, D. L., Akerson, V. L., & Phillipson-Mower, T. (2006). Integrating nature of science instruction into a physical science content course for preservice elementary teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants. Science Education, 90(5), 912–935.
  • Howe, E. M. (2007). Addressing nature-of-science core tenets with the history of science: An example with sickle-cell anemia & malaria. American Biology Teacher, 69 (8), 467-472.
  • Howe, E. M., & Rudge, D. W. (2005). Recapitulating the history of sickle-cell anemia research: Improving students’ NOS views explicitly and reflectively. Science & Education, 14(3–5), 423-441.
  • Ibrahim, B., Buffler, A., & Lubben, F. (2009). Profiles of freshman physics students’ views on the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 248-264.
  • Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84(1), 5-26.
  • Irzik, G. & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (999-1021). Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2005). Examining students’ views on the nature of science: Results from Korean 6th, 8th, and 10th graders. Science & Education, 89(2), 314-334.
  • Kaya, E. & Erduran, S. (2016). From FRA to RFN, or how the family resemblance approach can be transformed for science curriculum analysis on nature of science. Science & Education, 25(9), 1115-1133.
  • Kampourakis, K. (2016). The “general aspects” conceptualization as a pragmatic and effective means to introducing students to nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 667-682.
  • Khishfe, R. (2008). The development of seventh graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 470–496.
  • 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.
  • Kim, S. Y., & Irving, K. E. (2010). History of science as an instructional context: Student learning in genetics and nature of science. Science & Education, 19(2), 187–215.
  • Laugksch, R. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94.
  • 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(4), 331-359.
  • Lederman, N. G. (2006). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. B. Flick, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science. Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 301-318). Dordrecht: Springer.
  • 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, NJ/London: Erlbaum.
  • Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire (VNOS): Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.
  • Lederman, N. G., Antink, A. & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23, 285-302.
  • Lederman, N.G., Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N.G. Lederman, & S. K. Abell (Eds.). Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 600-620). New York: Routledge.
  • Lederman, J., Lederman, N., Bartels, S., Jimenez, J. (2019). An international collaborative investigation of beginning seventh grade students’ understandings of scientific inquiry: Establishing a baseline. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2019, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21512
  • 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 scientific knowledge: a dual-response instrument. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9, 1–20.
  • Lin, H.-S., & Chen, C.-C. (2002). Promoting preservice chemistry teachers’ understanding about the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 773–792.
  • Liu, S., & Tsai, C. (2008). Differences in the scientific epistemological views of undergraduate students. International Journal of Science and Education, 30, 1055–1073.
  • Matthews, M. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3-26). Dordrecht: Springer.
  • McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • McComas, W. F. (2017). Understanding how science works: The nature of science as the foundation for science teaching and learning. School Science Review, 98(365), 71-76.
  • McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standard documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • McDonald, C.V. (2017). Exploring representations of nature of science in australian junior secondary school science textbooks: A case study of genetics. In C. V. McDonald & F. Abd-El-Khalick (eds.), Representations of nature of science in school science textbooks: A global perspective (pp. 98-117). London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315650524-5
  • Mendel, G. (1866). Versuche über Pflanzen-Hybriden: Verhandlungen des Naturforschenden Vereines in Brunn [Experiments in Plant Hybridisation. Paper for the Brünn Natural History Society]. Retrieved from www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/gm-65-f.pdf
  • Metz, D., Klassen, S., McMillan, B., Clough, M., & Olson, J. (2007). Building a foundation for the use of historical narratives. Science & Education, 16(3–5), 313-334.
  • Michel, H., & Neumann, I. (2017). Nature of science and science content learning: The relation between students’ nature of science understanding and their learning about the concept of energy. Science & Education, 25(9-10), 951-975.
  • Neumann, K., Kauertz, A., & Fischer, H. E. (2010). From PISA to standards - the impact of large scale assessments on science education research in Germany. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 545-563.
  • Niaz, M. (2009). Critical appraisal of physical science as a human enterprise: Dynamics of scientific progress. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Organization for Economic and Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2017). PISA 2015 technical report. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • 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(7), 692-720.
  • Paraskevopoulou, E., & Koliopoulos, D. (2011). Teaching the nature of science through the Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute. Science & Education, 20(10), 943–960.
  • Parker, L. C., Krockover, G. H., Lasher-Trapp, S., & Eichinger, D. C. (2008). Ideas about the nature of science held by undergraduate atmospheric science students. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89, 1681-1688.
  • Rose, D. (2018). Avoiding a post-truth world: Embracing post-normal conservation. Conservation and Society, 16(4), 518-524.
  • Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2009). An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 18, 561–580.
  • Ryder, J., & J. Leach (1999). University science students’ experiences of investigative project work and their images of science. International Journal of Science and Education, 21, 945-956.
  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.
  • Schulz, R. M. (2014). Philosophy of education and science education: a vital but underdeveloped relationship. In M.R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1259-1316). Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Schwartz, R. S., & Crawford, B. A. (2006). Authentic scientific inquiry as context for teaching nature of science: Identifying critical elements for success. In L. B. Flick, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science. Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 331-356). Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [KMK]. (2005a). Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss (Jahrgangsstufe 10). Neuwied: Luchterhand.
  • Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [KMK]. (2005b). Bildungsstandards im Fach Chemie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss (Jahrgangsstufe 10). Neuwied: Luchterhand.
  • Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [KMK]. (2005c). Bildungsstandards im Fach Physik für den Mittleren Schulabschluss (Jahrgangsstufe 10). Neuwied: Luchterhand.
  • Shi, W.-Z., & Wang, J. (2017). Comparison on views of nature of science between math and physics students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(1), 77-85.
  • Tao, P. K. (2003). Eliciting and developing junior secondary students’ understanding of the nature of science through a peer collaboration instruction in science stories. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 147–171.
  • Teixeira, E. S., Greca, I. M., & Freire, O. (2012). The history and philosophy of science in physics teaching: A research synthesis of didactic interventions. Science & Education, 21, 771-796.
  • Watson, J. D., Crick, F. H. (1953). Molecular structure of nucleic acids; a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature, 171, 737-738.
  • Wolfensberger, B., & Canella, C. (2015). Cooperative learning about nature of science with a case from the history of science. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 10(6), 865-889.
LICENSE
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.