Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education

VNOS: A Historical Review of an Instrument on the Nature of Science
Luis-Alfonso Ayala-Villamil 1 2 * , Álvaro García-Martínez 1
More Detail
1 Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas, Doctorado Interinstitucional en Educación-DIE, COLOMBIA
2 Secretaría de Educación de Bogotá, COLOMBIA
* Corresponding Author
Research Article

Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 2021 - Volume 17 Issue 2, Article No: e2238
https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/9340

Published Online: 24 Dec 2020

Views: 388 | Downloads: 385

How to cite this article
APA 6th edition
In-text citation: (Ayala-Villamil & García-Martínez, 2021)
Reference: Ayala-Villamil, L.-A., & García-Martínez, Á. (2021). VNOS: A Historical Review of an Instrument on the Nature of Science. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 17(2), e2238. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/9340
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Ayala-Villamil LA, García-Martínez Á. VNOS: A Historical Review of an Instrument on the Nature of Science. INTERDISCIPLINARY J ENV SCI ED. 2021;17(2):e2238. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/9340
AMA 10th edition
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Ayala-Villamil LA, García-Martínez Á. VNOS: A Historical Review of an Instrument on the Nature of Science. INTERDISCIPLINARY J ENV SCI ED. 2021;17(2), e2238. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/9340
Chicago
In-text citation: (Ayala-Villamil and García-Martínez, 2021)
Reference: Ayala-Villamil, Luis-Alfonso, and Álvaro García-Martínez. "VNOS: A Historical Review of an Instrument on the Nature of Science". Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education 2021 17 no. 2 (2021): e2238. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/9340
Harvard
In-text citation: (Ayala-Villamil and García-Martínez, 2021)
Reference: Ayala-Villamil, L.-A., and García-Martínez, Á. (2021). VNOS: A Historical Review of an Instrument on the Nature of Science. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 17(2), e2238. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/9340
MLA
In-text citation: (Ayala-Villamil and García-Martínez, 2021)
Reference: Ayala-Villamil, Luis-Alfonso et al. "VNOS: A Historical Review of an Instrument on the Nature of Science". Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, vol. 17, no. 2, 2021, e2238. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/9340
ABSTRACT
This paper studies four key aspects of the instrument “Views of Nature of Science” (VNOS); a) its general characteristics, b) the particular characteristics of the forms VNOS-A, VNOS-B, VNOS-C, VNOS-D; VNOS-D+ and VNOS-E, c) the modifications of its open-ended questions, and finally, d) the scope and limitations of the VNOS forms from the new conceptualizations of the Nature of Science (NOS) construct. The methodology is based on documentary research. The criteria of validity and reliability of Scott (1990) are followed. The open-ended questions of VNOS are analysed from four identified inductive categories: extension, reduction, substitution and fragmentation. The main contributions of the article are: 1. Delve into the characterization of VNOS, and its forms, allowing future NOS researchers to interpret the data obtained from the VNOS forms. Thus, each VNOS form identifies open-ended questions focused on various aspects of NOS (direct questions) and open questions focused on a specific context. The VNOS-C form presents more open-ended questions in a specific context and may be of greater interest for research in some populations. Explicit and implicit questions are also identified. The VNOS-D + form has more open-ended questions. Researchers are probably able to find units of analysis to characterize NOS views more easily in the VNOS-D+ form. 2. Relate the open-ended questions and NOS aspects characterize in each VNOS form. 3. Group open-ended questions by characterized NOS aspects, which is of interest for research focused on a particular NOS aspect. 4. Finally, the possibility of characterizing views on “scientific methods” is highlighted, especially when VNOS is used in conjunction with monitoring interviews, as well as with the “Views About Scientific Inquiry” (VASI) instrument. Similarly, it relates to the potential of VNOS forms to characterize some aspects coming from other NOS conceptualizations, especially from “features of science” (FOS) raised by Mathews (2012). All of the above, contributes conceptually and methodologically, to the identification of NOS views of primary and secondary students and their teachers. This is necessary to carry out diagnoses of NOS views in different communities, to propose evaluations of the impact of different teaching strategies and to relate NOS with other constructs, which together allow for the development of skills for informed socioscientific decision-making in the population in general.
KEYWORDS
REFERENCES
  • Abd-El-Khalick,F. (1999). The influence of history of science courses on students’ conceptions of the nature of science (doctoral dissertation). Oregon State University, Corvallis. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/35510771
  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2006). Over and over again: College students’ views of nature of science. In Scientific inquiry and nature of Science. Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 389-425).
  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the sources for our understandings about science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 353-374. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.629013
  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Lederman, N. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatrual natural. Science education, 417–437. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199807)82:4<417::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-E
  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). The infuence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(37), 1057–1095. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200012)37:10<1057::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-C
  • Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2001). Integración de la epistemología en la formación del profesorado de ciencias (tesis doctoral). Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
  • Adúriz-Bravo, A., & Ariza, Y. (2013). Las imágenes de ciencia y de cientifico, una puerta de entrada a la naturaleza de la ciencia. En Adúriz-Bravo, Dibarboure, & Ithurralde (Eds.), El quehacer del cientifico en el aula, pistas para pensar (pp. 13–20). Montevideo, Uruguay: Fondo Editorial QUEDUCA.
  • Aflalo, E. (2014). Advancing the perceptions of the nature of science (NOS): Integrating teaching the NOS in a science content course. Reseach in Science & Technological Education, 32(3), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2014.944492
  • Aikenhead, G. (1987). High-school graduates’ beliefs about science-technology-society. III. Characteristics and limitations of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 71(4), 459-487. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730710402
  • Aikenhead, G., Fleming, R., & Ryan, A. (1987). High-school graduates’ beliefs about science‐technology‐society. I. Methods and issues in monitoring student views. Science Education, 71(2), 145-161. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730710203
  • Aikenhead, G., & Ryan, A. (1992). The development of a new instrument: “Views on science-technology-society” (VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760503
  • Aikenhead, G., Ryan, A., & Fleming, R. (1989). Views on science-technology-society. From https://education.usask.ca/documents/profiles/aikenhead/vosts.pdf
  • Akerson, V., Cullen, T., & Hanson, D. (2010). Experienced teachers’ strategies for assessing nature of science conceptions in the elementary classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 723–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9208-x
  • Akerson, V., Erumit, B., & Kaynak, N. (2019). Teaching nature of science through children’s literature: An early childhood preservice teacher study. International Journal of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1698785
  • Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542. https://doi.org/DOI 10.1002/sce.20432
  • Allchin, D. (2017). Beyond the consensus view: Whole science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1271921
  • American Association for the advancement of science [AAAS], A. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
  • Ayala-Villamil, L-A. (2019). Unidad didáctica para la enseñanza explícita de un aspecto de la Naturaleza de la Ciencia. Latin American Journal of Science Education, 6(1), 12002. https://lajse.org/may19/2019_12002.pdf
  • Ayala-Villamil, L-A. (2020). Conceptualización de naturaleza de la ciencia: El desarrollo de dos enfoques. Noria Investigación Educativa, 2(6), 105-128. https://doi.org/10.14483/25905791.16653
  • Aydemir, S., Ugras, M., Cambay, O., & Kilic, A. (2017). Prospective pre-school teachers’ views on the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Üniversitepark Bülten, 6(2), 74–87. https://doi.org/10.22521/unibulletin.2017.62.6
  • Bartos, S. (2013). Teachers’ knowledge structures for nature of science and scientific inquiry and their classroom practice (doctoral dissertation). Illinois Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://repository.iit.edu/bitstream/handle/10560/3110/Bartos_Ph.D._Diss.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  • Bartos, S., & Lederman, N. (2014). Teachers’ knowledge structures for nature of science and scientific inquiry: Conceptions and classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1150–1184. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21168
  • Carter, B., & Wiles, J. (2017). A qualitative study examining the exclusive use of primary literature in a special topics biology course: improving conceptions about the nature of science and boosting confidence in approaching original scientific research. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 12(3), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijese.2017.1245p
  • Celik, S., & Bayrakceken, S. (2012). The influence of an activity-based explicit approach on the Turkish prospective science teachers ’ conceptions of the nature of science. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(4), 75–95.
  • Chen, S., Chang, W., Lieu, S., Kao, H., Huang, M., & Lin, S. (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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21079
  • Cofré, H., Vergara, C., Lederman, N., Lederman, J., Santibánez, D., Jiménez, J., & Yancovic, M. (2014). Improving Chilean in-service elementary teachers ’ understanding of nature of science using self-contained nos and content-embedded mini-courses. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 759–783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9399-7
  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (Sixth edit). New York, USA: Routledge Taylor & Francis group.
  • Cotham, J., & Smith, E. (1981). Development and validation of the conceptions of scientific theories test. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(5), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660180502
  • Deboer, G. (2000). Scientific literacy : Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601.
  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people ’ s images of science by Rosalind Driver John Learch Robin Millar and. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
  • Duruk, Ü., Akgün, A., & Tokur, F. (2019). Prospective early childhood teachers’ understandings on the nature of science in terms of scientific knowledge and scientific method. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(3), 675–690. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.070306
  • Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2014). Family resemblance approach to characterizing science. In Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education (p. 206). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9057-4
  • Fernández, I., Gil, D., Carrascosa, J., Cachapuz, A., & Praia, J. (2002). Visiones deformadas de la ciencia transmitidas por la enseñanza. Enseñanza de Las Ciencias, 20(3), 447–488.
  • González-garcía, F., Blanco-lópez, Á., España-ramos, E., & Franco-Mariscal, A.-J. (2019). The nature of science and citizenship : A Delphi analysis. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9817-5
  • Hernández, R., Fernández, C., & Baptista, P. (2010). Metodología de la Investigación. (5a. ed.). Mexico D.F, Mexico: McGraw-Hill.
  • Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
  • Hodson, D., & Wong, S. (2014). From the Horse’s mouth: Why scientists’ views are crucial to nature of science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2639–2665.
  • 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
  • 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 (pp. 999–1021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8
  • Izquierdo-Aymerich, M., García-Martínez, Á., Quintanilla, M., & Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2016). Historia, Filosofía y Didáctica de las Ciencias: Aportes para la formación del profesorado de ciencias. Bogotá, D.C: Editorial Universidad Distrital. https://doi.org/10.14483/9789588972282
  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21305
  • Kartal, E., Cobern, W., Dogan, N., Irez, S., Cakmakci, G., & Yalaki, Y. (2018). Improving science teachers’ nature of science views through an innovative continuing professional development program. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(30), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0125-4
  • Lederman, N. (1998). The state of science education: Subject matter without context. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 3(2). Retrieved from https://ejse.southwestern.edu/article/view/7602
  • Lederman, N. (2007). Nature of science : Past, present, and future. In S. Abell, & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 831–880). New York, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Lederman, N., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74(2), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740207
  • Lederman, N., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
  • Lederman, J., Lederman, N., Kim, B., & Ko, E. (2012). Teaching and learning of nature of science and scientific inquiry: building capacity through systematic research-based professional development. In Advances in Nature of Science Research: Concepts and Methodologies (pp. 125–152). London New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2457-0
  • Lederman, N., Bartos, S., & Lederman, J. (2014a). The development, use, and interpretation of nature of science assessments. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching (pp. 971–997). New York, USA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8
  • Lederman, N., Antink, A. & Bartos, S. (2014b). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science and Education, 23, 285-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9503-3
  • Lederman, J., Lederman, N., Bartos, S., Bartels, S., Antink-Meyer, A. & Schwartz, R. (2014c). Meaningful assessment of learners’ understandings about scientific inquiry-The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21125
  • Liang, L., Chen, S., Chen, X., Kaya, O., Adams, A., 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), 1–20
  • Marin, N., Benarroch, A., & Niaz, M. (2013). Revisión de consensos sobre Naturaleza de la Ciencia. Revista de Educación, (361), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2011-361-137
  • Matthews, M. (1990). History, philosophy, and science teaching: The new engagement. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 1–14.
  • Matthews, M. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (nos) to features of science (fos). in m. s. khin (ed.), Advances in Nature of Science Research, Concepts and Methodologies (pp. 3–26). London New York: Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2457-0
  • McComas, W. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. McComas (Ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (pp. 53–70). Netherlands: The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • McComas,W. (2005). Seeking NOS standards: What content consensus exists in popular books on the nature of science? In Paper presented at the annual conference of the national association of research in science teaching. Dallas, TX.
  • McComas, W. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(23), 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9081-y
  • McComas, W., Clough, M., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. McComas (Ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (pp. 3–39). New York, USA: The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • McComas, W., & Olson, J. (1998). The nature of science in international science education. In W. McComas (Ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (pp. 41–52). New York, USA: The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Meichtry, Y. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the nature of science - Data from a case of curriculum-development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290407
  • Mesci, G., & Schwartz, R. (2016). Changing preservice science teachers’ views of nature of science: Why some conceptions may be more easily altered than others. Research in Science Education, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9503-9
  • Metin, D., & Leblebicioğlu, G. (2015). Development of elementary 6th and 7th grade students’ views about scientific model and modeling throughout a summer science camp. Education and Science, 40(177), 1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.1507
  • Ministry of Education [MOE], M. (2007). The Ontario curriculum grades 1-8: Science and technology. Retrieved 20 May 2019. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/scientec18currb.pdf
  • Mulvey, B., Chiu, J., Ghosh, R., & Bell, R. (2016). Special education teachers’ nature of science instructional experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(4), 554–578. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21311
  • National Research Council [NRC], N. (1996). National science education standards. Washington DC, USA: National Academic Press.
  • Niaz, M. (2009). Critical appreisal of physical science as a human enterprise: Dynamics of scientific progress. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105
  • Ozgelen, S., Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., & Hanuscin, D. (2013). Exploring the development of preservice science teachers ’ views on the nature of science in inquiry-based laboratory instruction. Research in Science Education, 43, 1551–1570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9321-2
  • PhysPort, Supporting physics teaching with research-based resources (2020, Juanary 20). Retrieved from https://www.physport.org/assessments/assessment.cfm?I=81&A=VNOS
  • Project ICAN. (2003). ICAN Year 2 annual report summary. Project ICAN: Inquiry, Context , and Nature of Science. Retrieved from https://science.iit.edu/sites/science/files/elements/mse/pdfs/Annual-report-y-2.pdf
  • Rennie, L., Goodrum, D., & Hackling, M. (2001). Science teaching and learning in Australian schools: Results of a national study. Research in Science Education, 31, 455–498. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013171905815
  • Rubba, P. (1977). User’s manual for the nature of scientific knowledge scale.
  • Rubba, P. A., & Andersen, H. O. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449–458. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730620404
  • Ryan, A., & Aikenhead, G. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76(6), 559–580. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760602
  • Sarkar, M., & Gomes, J. (2010). Science teachers ’ conceptions of nature of science : The case of Bangladesh. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 1–17.
  • Schwartz, R., Lederman, N., & Crawford, B. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Teacher Education, 88(4), 610–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10128
  • Scott, J. (1990). A matter of record: Documentary sources in social research. Cambridge, U: Polity Press.
  • Vázquez-Alonso, Á., Acevedo-Díaz, J., & Manassero-Mas, M. A. (2004). Consensos sobre la Naturaleza de la Ciencia: Evidencias e implicaciones para su enseñanza. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 14, 1–36.
  • Vázquez-Alonso, Á., García-carmona, A., Manassero-Mas, A., & Bennàssar-roig, A. (2013). Science teachers’ thinking about the nature of science: A new methodological approach to Its Assessment. Research in Science Education, 43, 781–808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9291-4
  • Vázquez-Alonso, Á., & Manassero-Mas, A. (2017). An alternative conceptualization of the nature of science for science and technology education. Conexão Ciência, 12(2), 18-24.
  • Wang, J., & Zhao, Y. (2016). Comparative research on the understandings of nature of science and scientific inquiry between sciencce teachers from Shanghai and Chicago. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(1), 97-108.
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.