addressing the nature of science in preservice science teacher preparation programs: science...

DOI: 10.1007/s10972-006-9012-9 c© Springer 2006

Original Paper

Addressing the Nature of Science in Preservice Science TeacherPreparation Programs: Science Educator Perceptions*

DeWayne A. Backhus & Kenneth Wayne ThompsonDepartments of Physical Sciences, Emporia State University, Emporia, KS, 66801–5087, U.S.A.

Published online: 3 May 2006

The nature of science (NOS) has a prominent role among the national science edu-cation content standards at all grade levels, K–12. Results from a national surveyof collegiate science educators indicate the perception that the greatest contrib-utors to preservice teachers’ understanding of the nature of science were sciencemethods courses, research projects, and science content courses. Implicationsof findings are discussed, including connections to current research concerningteacher preparation for effective NOS classroom teaching and student learning.

The Development of a Nature of Science (NOS) Course at Emporia StateUniversity: The Early 1990s

In 1989 the faculty of the Departments of Physical Sciences (the chemistry,earth science, and physics departments) initiated the approval of a two-credit-hourcourse titled “Nature of Science.” The course, designed for preservice middle-or secondary-level teachers who seek licensure to teach chemistry, earth science,general science (middle school science grades 5–8), or physics, has the followingdescription:

A capstone course required of preservice physical sciences teachers whichconsiders the major conceptual frameworks of the physical sciences. Thecharacteristics and development of scientific knowledge and model build-ing/theory development are central themes of the course. The interactionsof science, technology, and society are also considered.

In anticipation of the actual first offering of the course in the 1992–1993 aca-demic year, one of the authors (Backhus) sent an open-ended solicitation to a numberof members of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science (AETS),now the Association of Science Teacher Education (ASTE), requesting information

∗The Nature of Science course on the authors’ campus was initiated in the early 1990s, has evolved, andremains in the required core curriculum for preservice chemistry, earth science, and physics teachercandidates. It is the capstone for NOS insights. It adds to and refines impressions garnered implicitlyfrom science content courses, the methods course, and, for some, an undergraduate research experience.

Journal of Science Teacher Education (2006) 17: 65–81

66 BACKHUS & THOMPSON

concerning similar courses at their institutions. Thirty-four (34) responses werereceived. The responses can be characterized in three ways.

1. Most respondents acknowledged simply that their institutions have no suchcourse. References were made to modules or units in other courses, often ascience methods course, for addressing the objectives described.

2. Some referred to a history or philosophy of science course in a history, philoso-phy, or social sciences department.

3. Several lamented or offered encouragement. The following typify this categoryof response:

• “Unfortunately, we don’t offer such a course. I wish we did. Our secondaryscience students could use one.”

• “Your course description rings so many bells,” began a lengthy letter from asenior professor at a large research and doctoral degree granting university.

• “We do not have such a course. The course sounds like a good one . . .”• Acknowledgement of no such course, but with the added caveat: “I think it is a

good idea, and I try to incorporate some of those ideas into my methods course.”• “We don’t. I wish we did. I would be most appreciative if you would keep me

informed of your progress. I don’t know of anyone else who is doing much inthis area.”

These responses reflect the sentiments of science educators in the early 1990sconcerning a formal nature of science course for preservice science teachers at theirinstitutions. However, the thoughtful comments, syllabi, and reading lists submittedby several from among these field-based responses were instrumental toward thefinal development of a nature of science course at Emporia State University. Sincethe spring semester of 1993, the authors have been the principal faculty for thetwo-credit-hour required course for preservice physical sciences teaching aspirants.(See asterisk and note on first page of this article.)

National Context: The Development of the National Science EducationStandards and Related Dialogue

A great deal of dialogue concerning a myriad of issues, including the natureof science, was generated from 1994 to 1996 during the formulation of the nationalstandards and has continued since the publication of the National Science EducationStandards (Bodinar, 1995; Bybee & Champagne, 1995; Caprio, 1999/2000; Loucks-Horsley & Bybee, 1998; Pratt, 1995; among others). However, a substantial presencefor the nature of science endured through the discourse. The National ScienceEducation Standards by the National Research Council (NRC, 1996) exhort theinclusion of the “history and nature of science standards” through all grade levels:

In learning science, students need to understand that science reflects itshistory and is an ongoing, changing enterprise. The standards for the

SCIENCE EDUCATOR PERCEPTIONS 67

history and nature of science recommend the use of history in schoolscience programs to clarify different aspects of scientific inquiry, thehuman aspects of science, and the role that science has played in thedevelopment of various cultures. (p. 107)

While some may construe this standard as an exercise in “chronology” associ-ated with “content” developments in the sciences, which have endured through time,the challenge is to transcend that or something akin to only the “processes” of sci-ence. The nature of science must be communicated effectively to reinforce scienceas a rational way of knowing (Klapper, 1995; Lawson, 1999). Several conceptionsexist for the nature of science. Some emphasize that the efficacy of inquiry-basedinstruction can be reinforced if pedagogy is consistent with the manner in whichscience as a body of knowledge has developed (Hackett, 1998; Hinman, 1998;Ridgeway & Padilla, 1998). That science as a body of knowledge develops throughhuman endeavor should also be an apparent consequence of attention to the nature ofscience (Bybee, Ellis, & Matthews, 1992). However, current conceptions of “natureof science” are often considered to be even broader in scope. In the words of Le-derman, Abd-El-Khalick, & Bell (2001), “The phrase ‘nature of science’ typicallyrefers to the epistemology of science, science as a way of knowing, or the values . . .

inherent to the development of scientific knowledge” (p. 26; see pages 26–30; seealso Lederman, 1992, and McComas, 2004a, for elaborations). Hence, an inclusiveconception of nature of science embraces the characteristics, qualities, and valuesattendant to the scientific enterprise—the practice of science and the consequentdevelopment of scientific knowledge.

An articulated goal for attention to, and student understanding of, the natureof science is not new; it has precedence that has endured for decades (AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1928, 1989, 1990, 1993;Educational Policies Commission, 1966; National Society for the Study of Ed-ucation, 1960). In a more recent study of classroom teacher perceptions relatedto reform in science education, the nature of science was among those consid-ered by more than 80% of the respondents as ‘necessary’ or ‘very necessary’ tobe an effective science teacher” (Czerniak & Lumpe, 1996, pp. 255–256). Otherscience educators and researchers during the more recent reform period since thelate 1980s have explored arduously various dynamics of the nature of science—itsfundamental meaning from a variety of perspectives, preservice teacher preparation(particularly connected to desired NOS outcomes), and appropriate pedagogicalstrategies for attaining a meaningful presence of the nature of science with sci-ence instruction (AAAS, 1993; Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Lederman, 1998; Akerson& Abd-El-Khalick, 2003; Akindehin, 1988; Bell, Lederman, & Abd-El-Khalick,2000; Bianchini, Cavazos, & Rivas, 2003; Duschl, 1990; Flick & Lederman, 2004;Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002; Lederman, 1992; Lederman et al., 2001; Led-erman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002; Lederman, Wade, & Bell, 1998;Lederman & Zeidler, 1987; McComas, 1998; Osborne, Collins, Ratcliffe, Mil-lar, & Duschl, 2003; Smith & Scharmann, 1999; Southerland, Gess-Newsome, &Johnston, 2003).


Consequently, the national standards and the reform milieu have an appreciableemphasis in a number of areas in the content standards that are related to thenature of science: “The national standards imply a greater emphasis on inquiry,technology, science in personal and social perspectives, and the history of science.”Further, “The basis for students formulating science concepts and abilities, as wellas coming to understand the nature of science, is through active involvement andinvestigation” (Bybee & Champagne, 1995, p. 43). And if we heed the exhortationof Michael Matthews (1998), we would do the following: “What needs to be done. . . is move on to the practical matter of how to teach about the nature of science,how to engage students in the debate or conversation about the nature of science”(pp. xv–xvi). Presumably, they—preservice teachers and then as inservice teacherswith their students—cannot be expected to participate with the arcane argumentsof philosophers of science. However, a more modest beginning might be to attain alevel of confidence with preservice teachers such that they might ultimately engagetheir students in a meaningful and “accurate” manner with activities and discussionsthat characterize science as a body of knowledge consistent with the developmentof that body of knowledge through human endeavors.

One might envision a continuum for NOS literacy for students with scienceteacher preparation germane to the nature of science at one end of the continuumand effective delivery of NOS classroom instruction at the opposite end. How areaspiring science teachers perceived to become more sophisticated in their under-standings of the nature of science—that is science as a human endeavor, the natureof scientific knowledge, or historical perspectives—to meet the expectations ofgrade 9–12 students relative to Content Standard G of the National Science Educa-tion Standards (NRC, 1996, p. 200)? To address this question in the post-NationalStandards context, the authors conducted a national survey.

A Systematic National Survey

A national survey was conducted to address as the central question, “Howdo science educators perceive that preservice science teachers develop an under-standing of the nature of science?” From a 1998 AETS membership roster, 283members were targeted as respondents. A conscious effort was made to solicit onlyone member from an individual institution. Based on identifying characteristics(either explicit or implicit in the membership list), respondents who were facultymembers with an apparent continuing tenure were solicited; no student AETS mem-bers were solicited. Of the 283 members contacted, four solicitations were returnedbased upon an insufficient address. Hence, 279 possible respondents were solicited.Of the 279 possible respondents, 113 responses were received; these representedrespondents from 113 different institutions. This was a 40.5% response rate forinstitutions with AETS members.

The questionnaire response options for this central research question reflectedfour approaches to the nature of science suggested by McComas, Clough, andAlmazroa (1998) for incorporating the nature of science in science teacher prepara-tion programs. Those four approaches included the (a) nature of science integrated


Rate the following, using the scale provided as a basis for developing an understanding of the “nature of science” with preservice science teachers on your campus.

5: greatest contribution to a student’s understanding 4: contributes significantly to a student’s understanding 3: contributes moderately to a student’s understanding 2: contributes little to a student’s understanding 1: does not contribute to a student’s understanding

______ a. through involvement in a research project (i.e., doing science) ______ b. through a science methods course ______ c. through science content course(s) ______ d. through an explicit “Nature of Science” course designed principally for preservice

science teachers ______ e. through a history/philosophy/sociology of science course taught by a historian,

philosopher, and so forth (e.g., as part of a humanities curriculum) ______ f. other…specify:________________________________________________

Figure 1. Nature of Science (NOS) questionnaire, Question 1.

with a methods course required for preservice teachers, (b) inclusion in the contextof science content courses, (c) through involvement with a research experience,(d) or through formal study in a nature of science course taught by a science edu-cator to a preservice science teacher clientele or a formal history or philosophy ofscience course taught for a broader audience of students by someone from thosedisciplines (pp. 29–32). Figure 1 presents the principal research question of thesurvey, Question 1, based on these potential nature-of-science insight options. Theinstructions to respondents made explicit the directive to respond on the basis ofwhat ostensibly does occur in their teacher preparation programs, not what ought tooccur.

Table 1 contains a matrix with the results of the responses to the questionin Figure 1. The matrix juxtaposes the five possible response items to be rated(no respondents checked or defined “other”) and the respondents’ ratings—theirperceptions—of the degree to which that item contributes to an understanding ofthe nature of science with preservice science teachers on their campuses. (All datawere processed using SAS, Version 6.0.)

What do these data imply concerning respondent perceptions? Table 2 presentsthe data and the salient statistics from a chi-square analysis. Each cell contains (fromtop to bottom within the cell) the frequency for the respondent ratings (1–5) foreach response item (research project . . . science methods course, etc.); the expectedvalue (expected frequency) based on homogeneous probability distributions (as-suming the same pattern of response for each question); and the row percentage(the percentage of each cell frequency relative to the row total). A chi-square test of


Table 1

NOS Questionnaire, Question 1, Frequency Matrix of Results of Ratings as Basis forDevelopment of Understanding of NOS for Preservice Teachers on Respondents’ Campuses

Results of ratings

Response items 1 2 3 4 5no little moderate significant greatest

a. Research projectdoing science

12 8 13 17 15

b. Science methodscourse

1 6 38 16 7

c. Science contentcourse(s)

5 15 29 14 8

d. NOS course 20 3 7 11 9e. Humanities-based

NOS course19 11 14 9 4

homogeneity was conducted, and the result of this test was significant (p < .001).Therefore, one can readily conclude that the respondents’ perceptions represent apattern with statistical significance when judged against a chi-square probabilitydistribution.

However, the chi-square test is not a robust statistical test of the “locus” of sig-nificance. One may compare the cell frequencies with expected values and generatesome notions about the relative strengths of respondents’ perceptions. However,another statistical test of significance is needed to identify the perceived greatestcontributor to the aspiring science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science.

The statistical means of response items were subjected to an analysis of vari-ance (ANOVA). Those results appear in Table 3. On the basis of means, the perceivedgreatest contributor to students’ NOS understanding on the respondents’ campusesis the science methods course, followed successively by a research project “doingscience,” a science content course or courses, a nature of science course designedfor preservice teachers of science, but a nature of science course through the hu-manities is perceived as the least influential contributor. The apparent greatestcontributor, the science methods course, has a slightly larger mean than any otherresponse item. However, based on a Duncan multiple-range test (Borg & Gall, 1989;Duncan, 1955; Steel & Torrie, 1980) for the comparison of population means, thescience methods course, research projects, and the science content courses do notrepresent significantly different strategies for developing preservice science teachercandidates’ understanding of the nature of science. However, those three strategiesare perceived as “significantly” greater contributions to understanding than a roleplayed by a nature of science course, independent of the faculty and departmentalresponsibility for the nature of science course. What are some implications relatedto these findings and current avenues of research?


Table 2

NOS Questionnaire, Chi-Square Analysis of Data From Table 1

Results of ratings (N = 311)

Response items 1 2 3 4 5none little moderate significant greatest Totals

a. Research 12 8 13 17 15 65project doing 11.913 8.987 21.109 14.003 8.987science 18.46 12.31 20.00 26.15 23.08

b. Science 1 6 38 16 7 68methods 12.463 9.402 22.084 14.650 9.402course 1.47 8.82 55.88 23.53 10.29

c. Science 5 15 29 14 8 71course(s) 13.013 9.817 23.058 15.296 9.817

7.04 21.13 40.85 19.72 11.27

d. NOS course 20 3 7 11 9 509.164 6.913 16.238 10.772 6.913

40.00 6.00 14.00 22.00 18.00

e. Humanities- 19 11 14 9 4 57based NOS 10.447 7.887 18.511 12.280 7.881course 33.33 19.30 24.56 15.79 7.02

Totals 57 43 101 67 43 31118.33 13.83 32.48 21.54 13.83

Note: Cell values: row 1 = frequency, row 2 = expected value, and row 3 = row percentage;df = 16, value = 74.562, and p = .001.

Table 3

NOS Questionnaire Question 1 (see Figure 1), an Interpretation of Significance Based onan Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

Response Item Mean Duncan grouping∗

1b. Science methods course 3.3235 A1a. Research project . . . 3.2308 A1c. Science content course(s) 3.0704 A B1d. NOS course 2.7200 C B1e. Humanities-based NOS course 2.4386 C

∗Means with the same letter in the Duncan grouping are not significantly different.


Other Implications and Meanings Related to the Findings

Undoubtedly a number of caveats accompany an interpretation of the pre-vious findings relative to the basis for perceived science teaching candidates’understanding of the nature of science. Perhaps it should not be surprising thatthe methods course rated high in the science educator perceptions. Presumably, ev-ery aspiring physical sciences teacher will have completed a course whose principalobjectives are to consider aspects of pedagogy related to science teaching. Andevery preservice program that prepares science subject teachers will have contentcourse requirements to meet state and national standards for a specific teachingfield. So if there is any commonality from institution to institution among the fiveresponse item possibilities, the preceding would be the two. And, indeed, they ratedone and three, but not in a statistically significant fashion.

Issues concerning the context for imparting nature of science insight, for exam-ple, science methods courses versus science content courses, have been explored byAbd-El-Khalick (2001), through both literature reviews and research with contentcourses for preservice elementary teacher candidates. However, the findings did notelucidate clear and unequivocal strategies relative to effective subject preparationand pedagogy for successful nature of science teaching and student learning.

Schwartz and Lederman (2002) have investigated various dynamics of natureof science pedagogy and a potential relationship to the magnitude of one’s sciencecontent background for developing a knowledge base for teaching insights to thenature of the scientific enterprise. Certainly the subject content can provide thecontext for illustrating and reinforcing understanding of the scientific enterprise.However, is the potential of the subject matter for imparting a nature of scienceunderstanding actually achieved in science content courses? In their discussion ofimplications of their research, they were skeptical concerning a single means forattaining understanding and suggested an interaction among several contributingfactors for a classroom teacher “to successfully address” (p. 232) the nature ofscience. Subsequent discussions will return to this point.

More recent research (Southerland et al., 2003) concerning subject mattercontext and NOS insights typifies the trend of NOS research connected to its utilityfor subsequent student learning (i.e., ultimate desired student outcomes). Based onfindings from a case analysis of a conscious attempt of three scientists to designan integrated sciences course emphasizing the nature of science, and with apparentlimited success, one would be skeptical of coincident nature-of-science-insightoutcomes for a science content course. Indeed, the considerable research of Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (for example, 2000a) and associates underscores theneed for explicit attention to, and reinforcement of, the desired NOS outcomes, orelse one can’t assume or expect this collateral outcome. Again, this issue will beaddressed subsequently.

The role of research projects, the second highest rated item from among thesurvey respondents, is assumed to be somewhat unique to an institution’s program ofpreparation for preservice science teachers. A recent report (Mulvey and Nicholson,2002) for the American Institute of Physics cites the fact that 74% of the individuals


graduating with majors and degrees in physics and astronomy in the classes of1999 and 2000 participated in a research project. However, the statistic varied,depending upon a person’s postbaccalaureate plans. “The percentage among thosehoping to become high school teachers was lower, barely exceeding half.” Thereport then asserted that “This latter group could greatly benefit from a researchexperience, as they are the ones who will be imparting a feel for such practices toothers in the future” (p. 5). Testimonials from undergraduate student participants ina research program for aspiring teachers at a large state university extolled the meritsof that inquiry-based experience in their preparation, especially for an “increasedunderstanding of the science method in action” (Raphael, Tobias, & Greenberg,1999, p. 152).

Less optimism for the role of research projects for explicit NOS insights is re-ported by Bell, Blair, Crawford, and Lederman (2003). Extrapolating their findingsfrom high-ability, secondary-level students involved with an 8-week “science ap-prenticeship” (research experience) and the subsequent effects on the participants’understandings of the nature of science, the scientific enterprise, and inquiry, Bellet al., suggested the following implications and caveat for preservice science teacherpreparation:

When students only do science, it is the doing, and only the doing, thatis explicitly addressed and learned. Although it may prove beneficialfor teacher education programs to include authentic scientific inquiriesas required elements of their programs, it is critical that the programsprovide courses or other experiences that explicitly debrief these sci-ence experiences in terms of the nature of science and scientific inquiry.(p. 504)

Ostensibly, conscious efforts to reinforce desired outcomes must accompanythe strategies—whether with preservice science teacher candidates or pre-college-level students—for enhanced understandings and changing views related to thenature of science and the enterprise for doing science.

Matthews (1994) has written persuasively concerning the role of the historyand philosophy of science for a more “accurate” understanding of how scienceknowledge is developed. Holton and Roller (1958) distinguished “private” science,or “science-in-the-making,” from “public” science, or “science-as-an-institution.”Further, they asserted that “[O]nce an adequate distinction has been made betweenthese levels of meaning in the term ‘science,’ one of the central sources of confusionconcerning the nature and growth of science has been removed” (p. 231). Similarly,Bauer (1992) had disdain for teaching only what might be called final form sciencewithout a consideration of the arduous path to textbook science:

Through learning textbook science, one is misled about the nature ofscientific activity by learning only about relatively successful science, thethings that have remained within science up to the present. In scientifictexts, one hardly ever encounters the phenomenon of unsuccessful science,


and yet history teaches that the science being done at any given time willlargely be discarded . . . as unsuccessful. (p. 11)

Regarding a possible niche for nature of science courses with preservice sci-ence teacher preparation, another finding from the questionnaire is germane to theimplications of the survey results. Each respondent was queried concerning thepresence of a nature of science course and its “status” in a program for preserviceteachers at the K–4 (or K–6), 5–8, or 9–12 grade levels of preparation at theirinstitutions; the specific question for grades 9–12 is presented in Figure 2.

The results to this question from the institutional respondents as shown inTable 4 suggest that the majority of institutions (more than two-thirds) do nothave a nature of science course of any variety and that at most perhaps 6% ofpreservice 9–12 science teachers will have taken such a course as a requirement.Indeed, these findings are more pessimistic than those reported by Loving (1991) inwhich she found, based on a 17-institution survey, that “. . . 13% of undergraduatescience education majors and 19% of graduate students have a philosophy of sciencecourse in their degree plan . . .” (pp. 827–828).

Science educators perceived nature of science or history or philosophy ofscience courses for attaining preservice science teacher insights less influential thanmethods or content courses or opportunities to “do science” (research experiences).With-two thirds or more of the respondents reporting that a nature of science orhistory or philosophy of science course is not available on their campuses, no

Indicate the status of a “nature of science” course(s) and/or “history and philosophy of science” course(s) at your institution for preservice grades 9–12 science teachers . Check only one. Note: “Separate” refers to a distinctive course where the primary course goal is related to the nature of science and/or history and philosophy of science, rather than topics from these areas being integrated into a science content course.

______ a. separate course required for all preservice secondary science teachers

______ b. separate course required for some preservice secondary science teachers (please indicate which ones)

______ c. no separate course requirement, although separate course(s) are offered as elective(s)

______ d. no separate course offered

Comment(s)

Figure 2. NOS questionnaire, Question 2.


Table 4

NOS Questionnaire: Status of NOS Course for Various Levels of Preservice TeacherPreparation

K–4/K–6 5–8 9–12

Response item Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

a. Separate courserequired for all

2 2 4 5 5 6

b. Separate courserequired forsome

0 0 1 1 2 2

c. No separaterequirement;electiveavailable

21 25 22 26 21 25

d. No separatecourse offered

61 73 57 68 56 67

presence exists for an influence. However, if such courses existed, what are theprospects for desirable NOS preservice teacher preparation outcomes?

Abd-El-Khalick et al., (1998), both together and in association with other au-thors (see References), have investigated multiple issues related to students’ learningand NOS understanding at a range of student levels. They concluded that expecta-tions for preservice teacher candidates to translate the “coincidental” exposures inpreservice teacher preparation program contexts to subsequent classroom practiceto achieve NOS instructional objectives is questionable. In addition, they deducedthat explicit strategies have much greater promise for effectively addressing NOSobjectives with students in the classroom (Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman, 2000a;Bell et al., 2000). If this assertion is correct—and if content coursework is not ex-plicit with collateral NOS insight objectives—or if methods courses are constrainedby time and other more subtle standards limitations for achieving NOS objectiveswith preservice science teacher candidates—and if doing science research projectsleads to a conflation of processes, inquiry, and the nature of science, then a nature ofscience course that has an explicit pedagogical dimension for engaging preserviceteacher candidates with NOS activities may have the greatest promise for effectivelyclosing the continuum between teacher preparation and achieving the NOS learningoutcomes desired in real-world classrooms. These findings reported and this con-jecture are consistent with recent research to enhance science teacher preparationfor NOS understanding and subsequent teaching effectiveness.

What are the prospects for a history, philosophy, or sociology of science coursewith delivery by faculty from one of those disciplines for achieving desired NOS


outcomes? The utility of a history of science (HOS) course taught by a historianfor developing NOS insights with enrollees (based on pre- and posttesting) in threeHOS course variations has been investigated by Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman(2000b). Based on that study, their “preliminary” conclusion is the following:

The results of this study do not lend empirical support to the intuitivelyappealing assumption held by many science educators that coursework inHOS will necessarily enhance students’ and preservice science teachers’NOS views. However, explicitly addressing specific NOS aspects mightenhance the effectiveness of HOS courses in this regard. (p. 1057)

The investigators tempered this generalization with several observations ofone variant of the HOS courses, a course with “evolution” as the focus versus“survey” and “controversy” courses, which resulted in enhanced NOS understandingrelative to the other two. The enhanced level of NOS understanding resulted from acontext with more defined, concrete, or explicit connections with the desired NOSoutcomes. Also germane to our considerations is the finding from this same studythat preservice science teacher enrollees were characterized by a greater positivechange in their pre- and post-NOS views relative to other course enrollees or studyparticipants, which the investigators inferred may be related to the more substantialcognitive base or conceptual framework in the sciences that these students possessed,and fewer misconceptions to confound the role of such courses for enhanced NOSunderstandings (Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman, 2000b, p. 1085–1088).

A more refined generalization is that “. . . science educators cannot simplyassume that coursework in HOS by itself is sufficient to help prospective scienceteachers develop desired understandings of NOS” (Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman,2000b, p. 1089). An even more focused implication for that survey of scienceeducators being reported is the following, which

. . . indicates that if historians of science aim to enhance students’ NOSviews, then an explicit instructional approach that targets certain NOSaspects can be more effective than an implicit approach. Historians ofscience need to explicitly guide students in the process of interpretinghistorical narratives from within alternative perspectives. Students alsoshould be explicitly helped to discern relationships between any gener-alizations derived from the historical narrative and the nature of currentscientific knowledge and practice. (p. 1088)

The efficacy of a historical context for chemistry teaching with a goal ofenhanced understanding of the nature of science for preservice chemistry teacherswas investigated and reported by Lin and Chen (2002). Those students involved withpreservice teacher preparation in the study using the history-of-science pedagogicalstrategy for chemistry teaching revealed an enhanced NOS understanding. Thissuggests positive, synergistic effects of a hybrid connection of HOS and the sciencemethods course with inservice science teacher preparation programs.


In spite of exhortations otherwise in the current reform and post-national-standards period, the results of this survey suggested that very little is done formallytoward ensuring a presence of the nature of science with preservice science teacherpreparation programs. Practitioners seemed to “make do” with what was perceivedto be possible within the various program and other constraints that existed. Further,they may have been doing what was possible based on visceral notions of what wasmost effective within the limits of the constraints. The synoptic inference one mightmake is that nature of science objectives become somewhat coincidental to otherperceived program imperatives.

Concluding Comments

“How does learning for teaching occur?” (Shulman, 1986, p. 8). A number ofempirical studies and the associated meta-analysis of related research suggests anemerging model for the essential prerequisites to the effective teaching of NOS pre-cepts (Schwartz and Lederman, 2002). The model utilizes the “pedagogical contentknowledge” conceptual framework articulated by Shulman (1986). Fundamentalto the framework are knowledge bases. In the context of this study and nature ofscience insights, knowledge preparatory to teaching would include that provided bythe subject matter to be taught, pedagogy, and the nature of science. But in addi-tion to intersecting cognitive elements from the knowledge bases, Abd-El-Khalickand Lederman (2000b) and Akerson and Abd-El-Khalick (2003) would assert thatother dispositions or proclivities must exist: “. . . Teachers must intend and believethey can teach NOS, [and they] must believe that their students can learn NOS”(p. 1028). If, indeed, preservice preparation for effective NOS teaching involves asynergistic convergence of several critical factors (as well as teacher dispositionsand inclinations conducive to NOS teaching and student learning), then one mightexpect a pattern of science educator responses that equivocates among the responsepossibilities, but in a naı̈ve way. All are right . . . but none are right. That sentimentseems to prevail. What is needed? The continuum must include an amalgam offactors for teacher preparation and for the ultimate translation in the classroom toachieve enhanced students’ understandings of the nature of science.

A common argument for not placing nature of science objectives in the main-stream of science curricula has been the apparent lack of consensus concerningNOS content, themes, or features about which curricula can be organized. Recentempirical studies (McComas & Olson, 1998; Osborne et al., 2003) would dispelthat ostensible lack of agreement concerning common NOS themes. Osborne, et al.concluded that “. . . the nature of science can no longer be marginalized on the basisthat there is little academic consensus about what should be taught” (p. 714).

If such recent events as the unrelenting attacks on the theory of evolutionas a conceptual framework for the biological sciences are any indication (see,for example, http://www.world-of-dawkins.com), scientists and science educatorsignore the nature of science at the risk of continued distortions concerning scienceand its epistemology. Thus, for reasons which far transcend “meeting the standards,”science teacher preparation programs must include this dimension of science teacher


preparation. It would be unfortunate if the nature of science is dismissed as “soft,”superfluous, or not worthy of time in a “packed” curriculum.

A considerable body of literature related to these issues has been amassedthrough the leadership of such persons as Lederman (1992; also Lederman et al.,1998) and McComas (1998). Recent other literature (Bybee, 2000; McComas,2004a; National Academy of Sciences, 1998, 1999) has more direct utility forrelevant instruction by scientists and science educators to address issues attendantto the nature of science. This literature provides a perspective of science as a humanenterprise (e.g., the nature of theory and theory development), and it provides theclassroom teacher or professor with some strategies for addressing the aftermathof such pronouncements as “It’s just a theory” (Backhus, 2002). Teacher educationprograms must assist the preservice teacher aspirant to reflect seriously about thescientific enterprise and the ways of science in addition to science as a body ofknowledge and science teaching as a profession.

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the contributions of Larry Scott, professor and chair,Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Emporia State University, forassistance with statistical treatments of the survey data and a critical review ofrelated sections of the manuscript.

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preserviceelementary science courses: Abandoning scientism, but. . . Journal of ScienceTeacher Education, 12, 215–233.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000a). Improving science teachers’ con-ceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. InternationalJournal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000b). The influence of history of sciencecourses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 37, 1057–1095.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Lederman, N.G. (1998). The nature of scienceand instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education,82, 417–436.

Akerson, V.L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science:A yearlong case study of a fourth-grade teacher. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 40, 1025–1049.

Akindehin, F. (1988). Effect of an instructional package on preservice scienceteachers’ understanding of the nature of science and acquisition of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 72, 73–82.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1928). On the place ofscience education. School Science and Mathematics, 28, 640–664.


American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Science for allAmericans. Washington, DC: Author.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). The liberal art ofscience. Washington, DC: Author.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks forscience literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Backhus, DeW.A. (2002). It’s NOT just a theory. The Science Teacher, 69(4), 44–47.Bauer, H.H. (1992). Scientific literacy and the myth of scientific method. Chicago:

University of Illinois Press.Bell, R.L., Blair, L.M., Crawford, B.A., & Lederman, N.G. (2003). Just do it? Impact

of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandingsof the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 40, 487–509.

Bell, R.L., Lederman, N.G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and actingupon one’s conception of the nature of science: A follow-up study. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 37, 563–581.

Bianchini, J.A., Cavazos, L.M., & Rivas, M. (2003). At the intersection of con-temporary descriptions of science and issues of equity and diversity: Studentteachers’ conceptions, rationales, and instructional practices. Journal of Sci-ence Teacher Education, 14(4), 259–285.

Bodinar, N.J. (1995). Staking a claim with the standards. The Science Teacher,62(7), 35–37.

Borg, W.R., & Gall, M.D. (1989). Educational Research: An Introduction (5th ed.)New York: Longman.

Bybee, R.W. (2000). Evolution: Don’t debate, educate. The Science Teacher, 67(7),30–35.

Bybee, R.W., & Champagne, A.B. (1995). The national science education standards.The Science Teacher, 62(1), 40–45.

Bybee, R.W., Ellis, J.D., & Matthews, M.R. (1992). Teaching about the historyand nature of science and technology: An introduction. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 29, 327–329.

Caprio, M.W. (1999/2000). Navigating the standards. Journal of College ScienceTeaching, 29, 165–168.

Czerniak, C.M., & Lumpe, A.T. (1996). Relationship between teacher beliefsand science education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7,247–266.

Duncan, D.B. (1955). Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics, 11, 1–42.Duschl, R.A. (1990). Restructuring Science Education: The Importance of Theories

and Their Development. New York: Teachers College Press.Educational Policies Commission (1966) Education and the spirit of science.

Washington, DC: National Education Association.Flick, L., & Lederman, N.G. (Eds) (2004). Scientific inquiry and nature of science.

New York: Springer.Hackett, J. (1998). Inquiry: Both means and ends. The Science Teacher, 65(6),

34–37.


Hinman, R.L. (1998). Content and science inquiry. The Science Teacher, 65(7),25–27.

Holton, G., & Roller, D.H.D. (1958). Foundations of modern physical science.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective ver-sus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth-graders’ views of nature ofscience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 551– 578.

Klapper, M.H. (1995). Beyond the scientific method. The Science Teacher, 62(6),36–40.

Lawson, A.E. (1999). What should students learn about the nature of scienceand how should we teach it? Journal of College Science Teaching, 28, 401–411.

Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of sci-ence: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29,331–359.

Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Bell, R.L. (2001). If we want to talkthe talk, we must also walk the walk: The nature of science, professionaldevelopment, and educational reform. In J Rhoton and P Bowers (Eds.), Issuesin science education: Professional development planning and design (pp. 25–42). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.

Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R.S. (2002). Viewsof nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessmentof learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 39, 497–521.

Lederman, N.G., Wade, P., & Bell, R. (1998). Assessing understanding of the natureof science: A historical perspective. Science and Education, 7, 595–615.

Lederman, N.G., & Zeidler, D.L. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of the natureof science: Do they really influence teaching behavior? Science Education, 71,721–734.

Lin, H., & Chen, C. (2002). Promoting preservice chemistry teachers’ understandingabout the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 39, 773–792.

Loucks-Horsley, S., & Bybee, R.W. (1998). Implementing the national scienceeducation standards. The Science Teacher, 65(6), 22–26.

Loving, C.C. (1991). The scientific theory profile: A philosophy of science modelfor science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 823–838.

Matthews, M.R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy ofscience. New York: Routledge.

Matthews, M.R. (1998). Foreword and introduction. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), Thenature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. xi–xxi).Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

McComas, W.F. (Ed.) (1998). The nature of science in science education: Rationalesand strategies. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

McComas, W.F. (2004a). Keys to teaching the nature of science. The ScienceTeacher, 71(9), 24–27.


McComas, W.F. (Ed.) (2004b). The history and nature of science [Special issue].The Science Teacher, 71(9).

McComas, W.F., Clough, M.P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and characterof the nature of science in science education. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), Thenature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 3–39).Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

McComas, W.F., & Olson, J.K. (1998). The nature of science in internationalscience education standards documents. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The natureof science in education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht, TheNetherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Mulvey, P.J., & Nicholson, S. (2002). Physics and astronomy senior report: Classesof 1999 and 2000 (AIP Pub. No. R-211.31). College Park, MD: AmericanInstitute of Physics.

National Academy of Sciences (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature ofscience. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Academy of Sciences (1999). Science and creationism. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Wash-ington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Society for the Study of Education (1960). Rethinking science education(59th yearbook, Part I). Chicago: University of Chicago 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 expertcommunity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692–720.

Pratt, H. (1995). A look at the program standards. The Science Teacher, 62(7),22–27.

Raphael, J., Tobias, S., & Greenberg, R. (1999). Research experience as a componentof science and mathematics teacher preparation. Journal of Science TeacherEducation, 12, 147–158.

Ridgeway, V.G., & Padilla, M.J. (1998). Guided thinking. The Science Teacher,65(8), 18–21.

Schwartz, R.S, & Lederman, N.G. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast”: The influ-ence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205–236.

Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Smith, M.U., & Scharmann, L.C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature ofscience: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators.Science Education, 83, 493–509.

Southerland, S.A., Gess-Newsome, J., & Johnston, A. (2003). Portraying science inthe classroom: The manifestation of scientists’ beliefs in classroom practice.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 669–691.Steel, R.G.D., & Torrie, J.H. (1980). Principles and procedures of statistics:A biometrical approach (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

addressing the nature of science in preservice science teacher preparation programs: science...

Documents