INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
Research Article

Investigating Pre-Service Teachers’ Understanding of Nature of Science: Contributions of An Assessment Tool Based on the Reconceptualized Family Resemblance Approach

Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 2022, 18(4), e2290, https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12111
Publication date: May 25, 2022
Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Several literature sources discuss the importance of nature of science (NOS) understanding and how having an understanding is central to being a scientifically literate citizen. As a result, developing NOS understanding is one of the most commonly stated objectives for science education. Acquiring views on NOS has been a prominent feature of research in this area since the 1960s. The following article provides a proof of concept for the transformation of a theoretical framework into a practical assessment tool (worksheet). The reconceptualized family resemblance approach to NOS is a theoretical framing of NOS which describes components of science in terms of categories subsumed under epistemic, cognitive and social systems. The aim is to explore its potential for use in science education and demonstrate its functionality so as to collect data on pre-service teachers’ understanding of NOS and substantiate what can be achieved through its application. The designed assessment tool has many purposes and in this case it was used in a pre-, post-, and delayed-post methodology to investigate pre-service teachers’ understanding of NOS following participation in NOS themed workshops. Implications for science teacher education will be discussed.

KEYWORDS

nature of science pre-service science teacher education assessment

CITATION (APA)

Cullinane, A., & Erduran, S. (2022). Investigating Pre-Service Teachers’ Understanding of Nature of Science: Contributions of An Assessment Tool Based on the Reconceptualized Family Resemblance Approach. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 18(4), e2290. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12111
Harvard
Cullinane, A., and Erduran, S. (2022). Investigating Pre-Service Teachers’ Understanding of Nature of Science: Contributions of An Assessment Tool Based on the Reconceptualized Family Resemblance Approach. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 18(4), e2290. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12111
Vancouver
Cullinane A, Erduran S. Investigating Pre-Service Teachers’ Understanding of Nature of Science: Contributions of An Assessment Tool Based on the Reconceptualized Family Resemblance Approach. INTERDISCIP J ENV SCI ED. 2022;18(4):e2290. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12111
AMA
Cullinane A, Erduran S. Investigating Pre-Service Teachers’ Understanding of Nature of Science: Contributions of An Assessment Tool Based on the Reconceptualized Family Resemblance Approach. INTERDISCIP J ENV SCI ED. 2022;18(4), e2290. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12111
Chicago
Cullinane, Alison, and Sibel Erduran. "Investigating Pre-Service Teachers’ Understanding of Nature of Science: Contributions of An Assessment Tool Based on the Reconceptualized Family Resemblance Approach". Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education 2022 18 no. 4 (2022): e2290. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12111
MLA
Cullinane, Alison et al. "Investigating Pre-Service Teachers’ Understanding of Nature of Science: Contributions of An Assessment Tool Based on the Reconceptualized Family Resemblance Approach". Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, vol. 18, no. 4, 2022, e2290. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12111

REFERENCES

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science & instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417-436. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199807)82:4<417::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-E
  2. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200004)37:4<295::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-2
  3. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518-542. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20432
  4. Antonio, R. P. (2020). Developing students’ reflective thinking skills in a metacognitive and argument-driven learning environment. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 6(3), 467-483. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.v6i3.1096
  5. Bilican, K. (2018). Analysis of pre-service science teachers’ understanding of nature of science and proposed arguments on socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 4(2), 420-435. https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.410632
  6. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. SAGE.
  7. Brandon, R. (1994). Theory and experiment in evolutionary biology. Synthese, 99(1), 59-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064530
  8. Caramaschi, M., Cullinane, A., Levrini, O., & Erduran, S. (2022) Mapping the nature of science in the Italian physics curriculum: From missing links to opportunities for reform, International Journal of Science Education, 44(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.2017061
  9. Chen, S. (2006). Development of an instrument to assess views on nature of science and attitudes towards teaching science. Science Education, 90(5) 803-119. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20147
  10. Cheung, K. K. C. (2020). Exploring the inclusion of nature of science in biology curriculum and high-stakes assessments in Hong Kong. Science & Education, 29(3), 491-512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00113-x
  11. Cofré, H., Núñez, P., Santibáñez, D., Pavez J. M., Valencia, M., & Vergara, C. (2019). A critical review of students’ and teachers’ understandings of nature of science. Science & Education, 28, 205-248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00051-3
  12. Cooley, W. W., & Klopfer, L. E. (1961). Tous: Test on understanding science. Educational Surveying Service.
  13. Cullinane, A. (2018). Incorporating nature of science into initial science teacher education [Unpublished PhD dissertation]. University of Limerick, Ireland.
  14. Cullinane, A., & Erduran, S. (2022). Nature of Science in Preservice Science Teacher Education–Case Studies of Irish Pre-service Science Teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education. Published online: 5 May 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2022.2042978
  15. Cullinane, A., Hillier, J., Childs, A. & Erduran, S. (2022). Teachers' perceptions of Brandon's Matrix as a framework for the teaching and assessment of scientific methods in school science. Research in Science Education. Published: 26 March 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-022-10044-y
  16. Driver, R., Leach, J., Miller, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Open University Press.
  17. Duschl, R. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. Teacher’s College Press.
  18. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Springer.
  19. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00052-2
  20. Erduran, S., Kaya, E., Cilekrenkli, A., Akgun S., & Aksoz, B (2021). Perceptions of nature of science emerging in group discussions: A comparative account of pre-service teachers from Turkey and England. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19, 1375-1396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10110-9
  21. Erduran, S., Kaya, E., Cullinane, A., Imran, O., & Kaya, S. (2020). Practical learning resources and teacher education strategies for understanding nature of science. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (2nd ed.). Springer.
  22. Gray, K. L., & Fouad, K. E. (2019). A novel method for teaching the difference and relationship between theories and laws. Science & Education, 28, 471-501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00040-6
  23. Hodson, D., & Wong, S. L. (2017). Going beyond the consensus view: Broadening and enriching the scope of NOS-oriented curricula. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1271919
  24. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7-8), 591-607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9293-4
  25. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2000). History and philosophy of science through models: Some challenges in the case of ‘the atom’. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 993-1009. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416875
  26. Kaya, E., Erduran, S., Aksoz, B., & Akgun, S. (2019). Reconceptualised family resemblance approach to nature of science in pre-service science teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 21-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1529447
  27. Kelly, R., & Erduran, S. (2018). Understanding aims and values of science: Developments in the junior cyclespecifications on nature of science and pre-service science teachers’views in Ireland. Irish Educational Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2018.1512886
  28. Kimball, M. E. (1967). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5(2), 110-120. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660050204
  29. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94, 810-824. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20395
  30. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. The University of Chicago Press.
  31. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ & teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404
  32. 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). Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47215-5_5
  33. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science survey: Toward valid & meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
  34. Lederman, N., Wade, P., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing the nature of science: What is the nature of our assessments? Science & Education, 7(6), 595-615. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008601707321
  35. 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), 1-19.
  36. Matthews, M. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3-26). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2457-0_1
  37. Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 279-301. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.3.8323320856251826
  38. Mesci, G., & Schwartz, R. S. (2017). Changing preservice science teachers’ views of nature of science: Why some conceptions may be more easily altered than others. Research in Science Education, 47, 329-351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9503-9
  39. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. SAGE.
  40. 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
  41. Puttick, S., & Cullinane, A. (2021). Towards the nature of geography for geography education: An exploratory account, learning from work on the nature of science. Journal of Geography in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2021.1903844
  42. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N., & Lederman, N. (2008, March). An instrument to assess views of scientific inquiry: The VOSI questionnaire [Paper presentation]. The International Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Baltimore, MD, USA.
  43. Stadermann, H. K. E., & Goedhart, M. J. (2020). Secondary school students’ views of nature of science in quantum physics. International Journal of Science Education, 42(6), 997-1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1745926
  44. Stepan, N. (1982). The idea of race in science: Great Britain 1800 -1960. The Macmillan Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-05452-7
  45. Wooding, S., Cullinane, A., & Erduran, S. (2020). Supporting the teaching of scientific methods in practical science. University of Oxford. https://doi.org/10.5287/bodleian:xqvKxnmnX
  46. Yeh, Y., Erduran, S., & Hsu, Y. S. (2019). Investigating coherence on nature of science in the science curriculum documents: Taiwan as a case study. Science & Education, 28(3-5), 291-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00053-1

LICENSE

Creative Commons 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.