affording explicit-reflective science teaching by using an educative teachers’ guide

This article was downloaded by: [University of Liverpool]On: 06 October 2014, At: 01:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Affording Explicit-Reflective ScienceTeaching by Using an EducativeTeachers’ GuideShu-Fen Lin a , Sang-Chong Lieu b , Sufen Chen c , Mao-Tsai Huangd & Wen-Hua Chang ea Center for General Education , National Sun Yat-sen University ,No. 70, Lienhai Rd., Kaohsiung , 804 , Taiwanb Graduate Institute of Science Education , National Dong HwaUniversity , Hualien , Taiwanc Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education , NationalTaiwan University of Science and Technology , Taipei , Taiwand Department of Curriculum and Instruction , National Academyfor Educational , Taipei County , Taiwane Graduate Institute of Science Education , National TaiwanNormal University , Taipei , TaiwanPublished online: 21 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Shu-Fen Lin , Sang-Chong Lieu , Sufen Chen , Mao-Tsai Huang & Wen-HuaChang (2012) Affording Explicit-Reflective Science Teaching by Using an Educative Teachers’ Guide,International Journal of Science Education, 34:7, 999-1026, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2012.661484

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.661484

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09500693.2012.661484

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.661484

howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Affording Explicit-Reflective Science

Teaching by Using an Educative

Teachers’ Guide

Shu-Fen Lina, Sang-Chong Lieub, Sufen Chenc,Mao-Tsai Huangd and Wen-Hua Change∗aCenter for General Education, National Sun Yat-sen University, No. 70, Lienhai Rd.,

Kaohsiung 804, Taiwan; bGraduate Institute of Science Education, National Dong Hwa

University, Hualien, Taiwan; cGraduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education,

National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan; dDepartment of

Curriculum and Instruction, National Academy for Educational, Taipei County, Taiwan;eGraduate Institute of Science Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei,

Taiwan

Although researchers have achieved some success in effective nature of science (NOS) teaching,

helping teachers teach NOS continues to be a great challenge. The development of an educative

teachers’ guide would provide support for NOS teaching. In this study, we explored the effects

that a research-based guide had on affording elementary school teachers’ NOS teaching and on

improving their students’ understanding of NOS, and investigated key features for designing a

NOS teachers’ guide. The design of the teachers’ guide was based mainly on (1) criteria

pertaining to educative curriculum materials, (2) previous research concerning teachers’ guides

as facilitators of science teachers, and (3) feedback from participants of NOS professional-

development workshops. Our study sampled 10 teachers who implemented the NOS-curriculum

material. Six of them (Group A) had NOS-learning experience, while the other four teachers

(Group B) did not. Data sources included student outcomes on NOS, teachers’ teaching

performance of NOS instruction, an open-ended questionnaire, and transcripts of a focus-group

interview. The results indicate that the teachers’ guide enables teachers to perceive changes in

their beliefs, knowledge, and intention with regard to integrating NOS into the curriculum.

Group B exhibited NOS-teaching performance similar to that exhibited by Group A. Group B

teachers are capable of improving students’ understanding of NOS through the use of the guide.

Three key features for designing NOS teachers’ guides are: (1) explicitly indicating NOS teaching

practice, (2) building pedagogical knowledge for NOS teaching, and (3) guiding teachers’

reflection and learning.

International Journal of Science Education

Vol. 34, No. 7, 1 May 2012, pp. 999–1026

∗Corresponding author: Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Taiwan Normal

University, Taipei, Taiwan. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/12/070999–28

# 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.661484

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Keywords: Nature of science; Professional development; Reflection

Introduction

Improving students’ understanding of nature of science (NOS) is one of the key pur-

poses of current science education reform in several countries (American Association

for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1998; National Research Council [NRC],

1996; Ministry of Education [MOE], 2006). NOS typically refers to ‘the epistem-

ology of science, science as a way of knowing, or the values and beliefs inherent to

scientific knowledge or the development of scientific knowledge’ (Lederman,

2006b, p. 303). A number of key NOS concepts are relevant to our daily lives and

decision making such as empirical basis and subjectivity. Thus, an understanding of

NOS is the core of scientific literacy (AAAS, 1998; NRC, 1996). However, most tea-

chers do not possess adequate knowledge of NOS (Lederman & Zeidler, 1987; Liu &

Lederman, 2007; Tsai, 2002). Teachers’ instructional practices have not been aligned

with the rationales of reforms (Ball & Cohen, 1996; Van Den Akker, 1998). The poss-

ible explanation is that few curriculum materials have been designed to support NOS

instruction (Hipkins & Barker, 2005; Lederman, 2006a). Developing NOS curricu-

lum materials is critical to improve teachers’ and students’ understanding of NOS

and to support NOS instruction.

Curriculum materials, including textbooks and teachers’ guides, play a vital role in

educational reform (Powell & Anderson, 2002). For K-12 educational reform to

succeed, curriculum materials should promote both student and teacher learning

(Davis & Krajcik, 2005; Remillard, 2000). Effective teachers’ guides should provide

knowledge and support to teachers to help them understand these ideas and to

implement their curriculum plans based on reforms. Teachers’ guides may transform

teachers’ beliefs through reflection on how to teach and what to teach. However, the

existing teachers’ guides have often served as teaching resources rather than facilita-

tors for professional development (Lin, Chang, & Cheng, 2011). Nor do the guides

offer pedagogical knowledge (PK) or reveal rationales for instructional decisions

(Beyer, Delgado, Davis, & Krajcik, 2009; Kesidou & Roseman, 2002). Teachers

use a teachers’ guide when the curriculum is new to them or outside of their areas

of specialization (Shkedi, 1995). When NOS is integrated into curriculum materials,

it is new and abstract for most teachers. The development of a teachers’ guide for

NOS teaching is therefore critical. In addition to an understanding of NOS, teachers

also need the support of NOS-pedagogical content knowledge (NOS-PCK) to teach

NOS successfully (Akerson & Hanuscin, 2007; Hipkins & Barker, 2005). Thus, the

development of a teachers’ guide containing professional knowledge related to

NOS and NOS instruction is essential for teacher learning.

Previous studies have demonstrated that the inclusion of a scientific inquiry context

and the approach of explicit- reflective teaching can promote students’ understanding

of NOS (Bell, Blair, Crawford, & Lederman, 2003; Schwartz, Lederman, & Crawford,

2004). ‘Scientific inquiry’ refers to science processes and activities that develop scien-

tific knowledge (Schwartz et al., 2004). Learning through scientific inquiry may

1000 S.-F. Lin et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

provide learners with experiences of formation of scientific knowledge, and then expli-

citly or implicitly shape their conceptualization of NOS. Meanwhile, the explicit-

reflective approach means that the targeted NOS concepts ‘are made “visible”

within instruction through reflective discussion with students about the practice of

science’ (Lederman, 2006b, p. 312). These studies typically used the approach of

expert collaboration to implement NOS instruction rather than using curriculum

materials. The existing researcher-developed materials are mostly reliant on the

history of science (e.g., Kim & Irving, 2010; Lin, Cheng, & Chang, 2010). The use

of history of science materials is appropriate for experienced teachers with sufficient

NOS knowledge, but may not be adequate for ordinary teachers without such knowl-

edge. Indeed, very few teachers’ guides related to NOS instruction have been devel-

oped along with the materials, and even less is known about how guides should be

written to best support teachers. Teachers’ guides perform the function of educative

extension. It is worth developing a guide that ordinary teachers would use to incorpor-

ate NOS into their teaching and to investigate the useful features for teacher learning.

The present study has developed a material for the Dissolving unit which contains

several inquiry activities in Elementary Science. We integrated NOS into an inquiry-

based activity, and made a systematic attempt to develop a guide that elementary

school teachers would use to implement explicit-reflective NOS instruction. The pur-

poses of this study are to investigate the effectiveness of a curriculum material that con-

textualizes NOS concepts for elementary science classes and to derive practical

recommendations and important features for designing teachers’ guides. This study

thus provides insights into the design of teachers’ guides.

Theoretical Framework

NOS and Scientific Inquiry

Several disagreements about the definition of NOS still exist among philosophers, his-

torians, and science educators (Matthews, 1994). However, these disagreements are

irrelevant to K-12 science instruction (Lederman, 2006b). In general, NOS consists

of three main aspects, namely, the characteristics of scientific knowledge, scientific

methods, and the functions and roles of science communities in the process of scien-

tific knowledge formation (National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP],

1989). A number of key NOS concepts, including empirical basis subjectivity and

consistency, which are appropriate to teach in K-12, have become a part of science

curriculum standards in several countries (e.g., MOE, 2006; NRC, 1996), and how

to teach them in science classes has been described (Lederman, 2006a; Schwartz

et al., 2004). These concepts have also been examined for students’ and teachers’

understanding of NOS (e.g., Chen, 2006; Lederman, 1992; Liu & Lederman,

2007). In brief, NOS have been viewed as a cognitive outcome of instruction and a

part of subject matter knowledge (Abd-El-Khalick, 2001; Clough, 2006; Hanuscin,

Lee, & Akerson, 2011). In this study, these key NOS concepts involving contempor-

ary NOS views are referred to as NOS-content knowledge (NOS-CK).

Affording Explicit-Reflective Science Teaching 1001

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

As mentioned above, inquiry activities induce experiences for explicit and reflective

NOS instruction. On the other hand, NOS-CK influences a teachers’ teaching in a

laboratory. In general, scientific inquiry involves five essential features: questions, evi-

dence, explanations, justification, and communication (NRC, 2000). These features

are closely linked with NOS. The poorer a teacher understands NOS, the less likely it

is that these features will be revealed to the students in practical laboratory teaching.

For example, some teachers view the scientific method as a fixed set and sequence of

steps. They then ask students to follow it in an experiment (Lederman, 2006b). Some

teachers view scientific knowledge as truth; as a result, they use ‘right answers’ rather

than ‘evidence’ to judge students’ results in an investigation (Bianchini & Colburn,

2000). Therefore, to improve teachers’ understanding of NOS in scientific inquiry

and to provide a guide for teaching NOS in an inquiry context may improve practical

laboratory teaching.

Teaching NOS in the Context of Scientific Inquiry

Some teaching approaches have been shown to be more effective in teaching NOS.

Although several key NOS concepts are implicitly embedded in scientific investi-

gation, previous studies have revealed that students cannot understand NOS in

implicit NOS instruction (Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002). Researchers have

figured that effective NOS instruction needs to be explicit and reflective (Abd-El-

Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002). Explicit NOS instruc-

tion does not mean lecturing about it or imposing NOS concepts; rather, it means that

teachers intentionally design a curriculum to address particular NOS concepts,

including setting objectives, planning activities and questions, and preparing assess-

ments. Reflectively teaching refers to helping students make connections between

their experiencing activity and targeted NOS (Clough, 2006; Schwartz et al., 2004).

Explicit-reflective NOS instruction may be carried out through scientific discourse

between teachers and students. Especially, during the process of inquiry, teachers’

and students’ engagement in argumentation and persuasion is beneficial to students’

understanding of the process of knowledge formation (Clough, 2006). For example,

drawing on their experiences of inquiry, students can discuss whether the data tell us

what to think or whether we have to come up with ideas to explain the data. Teachers

can guide their students to reflect on how their justification of claims and their efforts

at persuasion are similar to those of scientists. Based on the above teaching principle

of NOS teaching, we propose a three-dimensional teaching model to support tea-

chers’ NOS instruction. This model involves (1) an intention of explicit NOS teach-

ing, (2) an inquiry-based learning process, and (3) explicit-reflective discourse.

Design of Materials for NOS Teaching

Schwartz and Lederman (2002) have pointed out that teachers’ intentions and con-

fidence concerning NOS teaching are crucial for implementing NOS instruction. A

major challenge is how to help teachers understand the importance of NOS and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

guide them to incorporate NOS concepts into learning objectives. The development

of a teachers’ guide may provide a solution.

For curriculum developers, a guide becomes teaching material, and a teacher

becomes a learner. The contents of a guide need to reveal curriculum developers’ con-

cerns, expectations of what teachers are to learn, and attempt to influence teachers’

decision-making (Grossman & Thompson, 2008; Remillard, 2005). In addition,

the contents also need to contain several aspects of teacher knowledge, including

CK, PCK and PK (Grossman & Thompson, 2008).

To help teachers reach the goals of curriculum reform, K-12 curriculum materials

should be designed to promote student learning and teacher learning (Davis &

Krajcik, 2005; Schwartz, 2006). In this article, materials emphasizing teachers as lear-

ners are referred to as educative curriculum materials. Such materials are ‘designed to

speak to teachers, not merely through them’ by engaging teachers in ‘the ideas under-

lying the developers’ decisions and suggestions’ (Remillard, 2000, p. 347). In other

words, the materials should transmit the rationales of reform as knowledge of

teacher learning (Remillard, 2000). Moreover, innovative materials often challenge

teachers’ beliefs about learning, teaching, and science (Powell & Anderson, 2002).

Teachers’ guides should provide explicit pedagogical support to teachers in their prac-

tice-based efforts to learn new teaching strategies, to experience new ideas, and to

reflect on their teaching (Beyer et al., 2009; Remillard, 2000; Schneider, Krajcik, &

Blumenfeld, 2005). Previous studies have found that educative curriculum materials

can support teachers in developing several aspects of PCK (McNeill & Krajcik, 2008;

Schneider & Krajcik, 2002). Criteria for the educative teachers’ guide are discussed

later.

Finally, the contents of a teachers’ guide should concern teachers’ needs and diffi-

culties regarding implementation of innovative curriculum materials. Remillard

(2000) revealed that guides should be designed to meet teachers’ needs for learning

and support their enactment of the reform goals. Especially, previous NOS studies

about NOS professional development have revealed some teachers’ difficulties in

the implementation of NOS instruction, including lack of understanding of NOS

and NOS teaching strategies, and the need for a NOS teaching model (Akerson &

Hanuscin, 2007). Curriculum developers should provide resolvable strategies as

one part of the contents of guides.

Design of Materials for Teachers

Design of teachers’ guides has been led by three views pertaining to different func-

tions. First, prescriptive guides, or curriculum scripts, afford pedagogical principles,

procedures, and contents that teachers can follow (Doyle, 1990). Second, advisory

guides provide an overall pedagogical framework, instructional suggestions, and

appropriate approaches. Teachers select from the alternative practices presented.

Third, reflective guides provide resources to transform teachers’ beliefs about

science, teaching, and learning. Teachers are expected to reflect on their beliefs

under the stimulus of reflective questions, new rationales of reform, and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

understanding of reformed practices (Lin et al., 2011). The view of reflective guides

was emphasized in the development of our teachers’ guide, because implementing

NOS teaching requires teachers to modify their existing teaching models. However,

in order to support the various learning needs of teachers, we did not forsake the

other two views. Specifically, elementary teachers typically have a wide variation in

their education background. Their needs can vary greatly (Remillard, 2005). Thus,

our teacher guide also included supplementary and alternative questions and activities

for instruction.

Furthermore, it is important to use effective forms to present what curriculum

developers intend teachers to learn (Posner, 2004; Remillard, 2005). Effective

forms of representation include tables, illustrations, examples, explanations and so

on. Important ideas could be clearly exposed by titles, bold-print, margin notes, pic-

tures, in-text questions, topical context, layout features, or the representation of

sequential relationships (Yore & Shymansky, 1992). Moreover, guides should be

designed to meet teachers’ preferences for learning and enactment support. Teachers’

perceived usefulness of the guide would influence their usage of and learning effect

from the guide. Positive perceptions of the guide would support their reformed teach-

ing practice. Based on the empirical data of our previous research on teachers’ prefer-

ences and usefulness of teachers’ guides, ‘the reduced Student Edition pages in the

guide’ were designed. Teachers believe that brief and clear presentations of the pur-

poses, reminders, and answers on ‘the reduced Student Edition pages in the guide’

are the most helpful representations. On the other hand, detailed teaching procedures

provide little support (Lin et al., 2011).

A Systematic Approach to Developing an Educative Teachers’ Guide

We selected the Dissolving unit to develop the NOS material. The teachers followed

the syllabus of their textbooks to teach the dissolving unit by using our materials. The

implementation of the NOS material took about 12–15 lessons. The NOS concepts

included empirical basis, subjectivity, causality, and consistency. The teachers’ guide

had four sections: introduction, teaching, learning and supplementary sections.

Harnessing general guidelines suggested by the literature and several previous

studies, we input innovative features to enhance the content of the guide and the

forms of representation for promoting teachers’ explicit-reflective NOS instruction.

Four parts of the related studies provided us with implications pertaining to the

guide design (Figure 1). The related studies and innovations are described as follows.

Criteria for the Educative Teachers’ Guide

The criteria of educative curriculum materials (Beyer et al., 2009) that support

teachers’ inquiry-based teaching provided us with a good framework. Beyer et al.’s cri-

teria for educative curriculum materials focus on three domains of teacher knowledge:

PCK for science topics, PCK for science inquiry, and science CK. Each domain con-

tains some categories, each of which includes rationales and implementation guidance


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

to support teacher learning. Rationales are explicitly presented by explaining why the

approaches are pedagogically and scientifically appropriate. Implementation guidance

helps teachers know how to use approaches and activities. For example, one of the cat-

egories in the domain of PCK for scientific inquiry is: supporting teachers in engaging

students in questions. Its implementation guidelines are: explaining why particular

questions are appropriate, helping teachers use questions with students, and

helping teachers encourage students to ask and to answer their own questions. This

framework helps us examine the design of inquiry-based activities, the descriptions

of teaching strategies, and possible supports for teaching guidance in the educative

teachers’ guide.

However, to develop a guide for teaching NOS, the above-mentioned criteria lack

support for NOS-PCK. It is necessary to develop criteria governing support for NOS-

PCK. According to Hanuscin et al. (2011), there are three ways in which teachers

transform their understanding of NOS into forms accessible to students: (1) translat-

ing the language of the reforms into kid-friendly terms, (2) operationally defining

NOS in the context-based experiences, and (3) drawing analogies to NOS aspects

using children’s literature. Through these three ways, Hanuscin et al. provided rich

accounts of their PCK in action, such as teachers’ knowledge of assessment, knowl-

edge of curriculum and knowledge of teaching strategies. Their findings and the fra-

mework of criteria of educative materials provided us with a basis to develop criteria

for NOS-PCK support (Table 1). These criteria along with Beyer et al.’s criteria pro-

vided us a framework within which to develop the guide.

Studies about Teachers’ Guides

The literature and our pilot studies revealed teachers’ perceptions of good guides.

Shkedi (1995) found that, in addition to teaching activities and CK, teachers also

expect a presentation of alternative teaching approaches, the freedom to choose teach-

ing approaches, and an outline of the curriculum’s structure, rationale, and objectives.

Figure 1. Development of the guide based on four parts of research and innovation


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Accordingly, we provided alternative questions and activities for interacting with

diverse students in the supplementary section, and a comprehensive explanation of

the NOS curriculum structure which aligned the goals with teaching strategies and

assessment.

Table 1. New domain of support for NOS-PCK and the corresponding features in the guide

Category/criteria

Type of

support Features in the guide

1. Support Teachers’ Understanding of Both NOS Concepts and NOS Curriculum Guidelines: Provide

interpretations of NOS concepts and NOS curriculum guidelines

A. Explain why a particular activity is

appropriate for conveying certain NOS

concepts and NOS curriculum guidelines

Rationale Introducing the importance of NOS and the

meaning of NOS concepts

Aligning NOS concepts with NOS curriculum

guidelines

B. Help teachers integrate NOS concepts

in a particular activity

Guidance Designing a set of teaching guidelines for each

inquiry activity, including questions for

teacher thinking, reduced Student Edition

pages in TG, teaching procedure, and

pedagogical guidance

Explicitly indicating NOS concepts and the

NOS teaching model on each teaching

procedure

C. Help teachers understand students’

alternative concepts of NOS

Guidance Providing extensive learning with footnotes

and keywords

2. Support Teachers’ Engagement of Students in the Context of Formulating Knowledge: Provide driving

questions for a strengthened focus on NOS discussion

A. Explain why NOS discussion is

important

Rationale Enhancing pedagogical knowledge for inquiry

and classroom discussion in the section on


B. Explain to students the importance of

knowledge formation

Rationale Explaining the model of NOS instruction

C. Help teachers adapt and use NOS

questions

Guidance Providing questions for teacher thinking at the

beginning of the guidance for each activity

Providing alternative questions for students

possessing different levels of understanding

D. Help teachers guide students engaging

in the process of formatting knowledge

Guidance Enhancing pedagogical knowledge for inquiry



E. Help teachers appreciate students’ work

in the process of formatting knowledge

Guidance Enhancing pedagogical knowledge for inquiry



3. Support Teachers in Assessing Students’ Understanding of NOS: Provide teachers with an embedded

assessment for assessing students’ understanding of NOS.

A. Explain why embedded assessment is

important for NOS instruction

Rationale Introducing the importance of NOS and the

meaning of NOS concepts

B. Help teachers adapt and use embedded

assessment

Guidance Providing embedded assessment at the end of

each activity


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

The pilot study about teachers’ perceptions of current guides showed that ‘the

reduced Student Edition pages in the guide’ (Figure 2) was the most helpful charac-

teristic of guides, but the highly detailed description of teaching procedures was not

useful (Lin et al., 2011). Most teachers are familiar with the content in textbooks

and have their own teaching models. Thus, they do not feel that they have a need

for a teaching procedure. Because NOS teaching is new to most teachers, we

made efforts to enhance the function of teacher learning in the guide. Moreover, tea-

chers prefer clear and concise teaching support for their efforts to capture and to

convey the key teaching points (Lin et al., 2011). Thus, we emphasized the

design of the layout to highlight the key teacher-learning concepts. In the reduced

Student Edition pages in the guide, we identified key science concepts and used

footnotes to explain the rationales that we had intentionally harnessed when design-

ing the NOS material for teacher learning (Figure 2). The footnotes also made links

to the teaching section or the supplementary section. To meet teachers’ preference

for enactment support, we designed a set of teaching guidelines for each inquiry

activity, which included thought-inducing questions for teachers, teaching pro-

cedures, and pedagogical guidance. In brief, to develop the guide, we kept the

useful and preferred features of traditional guides, as well as improved the weak-

nesses of traditional guides.

Feedback from the NOS Professional Development Workshop

Concurrent with developing the guide, we held a series of workshops on NOS pro-

fessional development to collect data about (1) teachers’ difficulties in teaching

Figure 2. An example of the reduced Student Edition pages in the guide


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

NOS, and (2) teachers’ understanding of NOS. The study indicated that most of the

science teachers did not know the importance of NOS in the science curriculum and

that they lacked a satisfactory understanding of NOS curriculum guidelines. NOS

concepts and NOS curriculum guidelines tend to be excessively abstract for most tea-

chers. It is necessary to unpack each NOS curriculum guideline and explain the NOS

concepts. ‘Unpacking’ means breaking apart and expanding the abstract concepts to

elaborate on the intended NOS concepts and to address learning goals and teaching

activities. The unpacked NOS curriculum guidelines would help designers set NOS

learning goals in the curriculum. In addition, we aligned NOS concepts with NOS

curriculum guidelines in the guide.

Furthermore, teachers need a teaching model for them to understand NOS and to

design their NOS lesson plans. Therefore, we propose a three-dimensional teaching

model to advise teachers how to design and implement NOS lessons (more details

in the next section). The teachers can move toward an explicit reflective type of teach-

ing by extending the guided inquiry teaching procedures in the textbook. They could

start from an explicit introduction of intended NOS tenets and add a whole class reflec-

tive discussion after the students complete their investigating activities. To narrow the

gap between rationales and teaching practice, we explained the meaning of NOS con-

cepts and NOS teaching models in the introductory section; also, we indicated the key

concepts of both the teaching model and the NOS concepts in the teaching section.

Input—Teaching Model, Teacher Thinking, and Innovative Features

On the basis of the pilot study, we proposed a three-dimensional teaching model. This

model involves (1) an intention of explicit NOS teaching, (2) an inquiry-based learn-

ing process, and (3) the engagement of argumentation and persuasion. Clough and

Olson (2008) proposed that teachers’ NOS-related understanding needs to go well

beyond a list of NOS tenets. Exploring the NOS in activities can help teachers

deeply understand its contextual nature. Thus, in the implementation section, we

indicated explicitly the NOS concepts as they pertain to teaching procedures that

help improve teachers’ understanding of NOS concepts.

Curriculum resources for teachers should provide support, foster reflection, and

promote understanding with regard to students’ thinking (Remillard, 2000). To

improve the function of teacher thinking, which would encourage teachers to reflect

upon their beliefs, to compare their beliefs with the rationales of reform, and to

develop innovative teaching, we designed teacher thinking questions that would

promote teacher reflection at the beginning of each activity, and our teaching

section featured footnotes and keywords to provide teachers with corresponding

NOS-PCK and traditional teaching styles so that they can compare traditional teach-

ing views with the rationales of reform. The design presents questions on one page and

the corresponding answers (i.e., knowledge) on the other, the purpose of which is to

increase the opportunities that teachers would have to engage in reflection. In

addition, we provided teachers with guide multiple-choice questions at the end of

each activity to assess students’ understanding. Teachers could also examine their


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

own understanding of NOS during the teaching-preparation phase. Questions in this

regard not only help teachers focus on the key NOS concepts, but also improve the

function of teacher thinking in the guide. By summarizing the above innovations,

10 features that we designed to support teachers in their effort to learn how to

teach NOS are listed in Table 1. These features would enhance the function of

teacher thinking, as well as provide teachers with teaching resources, a function

that is common in traditional guides.

Summary

We reviewed the key ideas of designing educative curriculum materials from previous

studies (i.e., the criteria of NOS-PCK and Beyer et al.’s criteria), explored helpful fea-

tures in traditional guides, identified teachers’ NOS-instruction needs and difficulties

on the basis of our NOS professional workshops, and created innovative features for

teacher learning and teacher thinking to develop the NOS guide. The above-men-

tioned criteria composed a checklist to ensure the quality of the guide. The checklist

consisted of four aspects: PCK for science topics, PCK for science inquiry, science

CK and NOS-PCK. Table 1 provides examples of items in the NOS-PCK aspect.

One science educator and one experienced elementary teacher examined the guide

through using the checklist to determine its content validity. They agreed that the

content in the guide addressed each criterion in the checklist. The guide was thus

judged by us to possess content validity.

Compared with traditional guides, our guide is improved in a number of areas: the

introductory section provides more explanations of NOS-teaching rationales, NOS

concepts, alignment of NOS concepts, teaching strategies, and assessments; the

teaching section provides a set of teaching guidelines, a NOS-teaching model, alterna-

tive questions for class discussion, advice for extensive learning, and questions for

teacher reflection; the learning section provides information on embedded assess-

ment; and the supplemental section provides support for alternative activities.

Focus of the Study

In this paper, we described the development of the educative curriculum material, and

illustrate, in particular, how we have developed the guide on the basis of research and

innovation. To investigate the practical and affective effects of the educative teachers’

guide for teachers without sufficient NOS knowledge, we engaged two groups of tea-

chers (with and without sufficient NOS knowledge) and compared their students’

learning outcomes, their teaching performance and their perceptions after implemen-

tation of the NOS material. Finally, we identified which features of the guide helped

the teachers learn how to teach NOS. The research questions underlying this study

are listed below:

1. Did the teachers perceive changes in beliefs, knowledge and intention of teaching

NOS after the use of the guide?


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

2. Was the NOS teaching performance of the two groups of teachers different?

3. Did the students improve their understanding of NOS after implementation of the

NOS material?

4. Did the students’ learning outcomes of NOS vary according to whether they were

taught by teachers with or without sufficient NOS knowledge?

5. What guide features did the science teachers report as being relatively beneficial?

Methodology

Participants

Ten elementary school science teachers were recruited to use the NOS material.

Through interviews, we found that six of them (Group A) had relatively more NOS

knowledge than the other four (Group B). The Group A teachers had taken at least

one course related to NOS in their graduate program of science education or had par-

ticipated in at least 60 h of NOS professional development workshops. However, the

other four teachers had never attended any workshops or courses related to NOS.

Based on the apparent difference in their NOS learning experience, we determined

which groups they should be in. Most of the teachers had at least five years of teaching

experience and two years of science teaching experience. Their ages ranged from 27 to

50. In Table 2, number of years teaching and urban/rural information are presented. All

of these teachers taught variously in urban or rural areas, covering a total of 224 third to

sixth grade students. In all, 200 of the students completed both the pre- and post-tests.

Data Collection

This research was not designed as a typical comparison study with control and exper-

imental groups. A quasi-experimental design with two groups of teachers was used to

investigate the practical and affective effects of the educative teachers’ guide for tea-

chers with (Group A) or without (Group B) sufficient NOS knowledge. We collected a

variety of data sources to evaluate the effects of the guide, including the student pre-

and post-tests, teaching videos, teacher interviews conducted before the NOS teach-

ing, and an open-ended teacher questionnaire conducted after the NOS teaching.

Furthermore, we conducted a focus-group interview to collect the teachers’ percep-

tions of the use of the teachers’ guide. These various data sources provided us with

sufficient means to triangulate our findings.

A NOS test was given before and after the Dissolving unit. The test was reviewed

and modified by three science education experts. Ten elementary school students par-

ticipated in the pilot test and follow-up interviews, and then the final version of the test

was decided upon. The NOS test which had ten open-ended questions addressing two

aspects of NOS: the characteristics of scientific knowledge (eight questions) and the

functions and roles of science communities in the process of scientific knowledge for-

mation (two questions). In the first aspect, students’ understanding of four NOS con-

cepts including empirical basis, subjectivity, causality, and consistency were assessed


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

in the context of the Dissolving unit. For example, the following is one of the test items

which assessed students’ understanding of consistency:

Jones would like to investigate the amount of sugar which can dissolve in 50 ml of water.

He conducted the same experiment five times and recorded the amount of sugar dissol-

ving each time. In your opinion, why did Jones repeat the same experiment several times?

The second aspect assessed the students’ understanding of knowledge formation in

class and in the science community, respectively:

From your experience in this unit, how did you form your knowledge of dissolving?

What do you think of the formation of scientific knowledge?

Table 2. Personal data of the teachers using the NOS material

Teacher

Background with

NOS learning Degree subject

Years of science-

teaching/teaching

experience

School

site

Grade of

students

Group A

Lee Two courses related to

NOS in graduate

school

Math and science

education

6/8 Urban 5

Lin One course related to

NOS in graduate

school

Medical engineering

and science

education

5/7 Rural 3

Lai One course related to

NOS in graduate

school

Engineering and

science education

4/8 Rural 3

Hsu One course related to

NOS in graduate

school

Mechanics and

science education

0.5/5 Urban 6

Hung At least 100 hours of

courses in a NOS

workshop

Nursing and

elementary

education

12/12 Rural 3

Wu At least 100 hours of

courses in a NOS

workshop

Elementary

education

10/16 Rural 3

Group B

Lu Little learning

experience regarding

NOS

Accounting and

science education

15/17 Urban 3

Chang Little learning


NOS

Math and science

education

2/5 Urban 3

Chen Little learning


NOS

Science education 1.5/10 Urban 3

Chung Little learning


NOS

Natural science

education

0/2.5 Urban 4


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

The Cronbach’s a reliability of the NOS test is 0.78.

To investigate whether the guide had helped the teachers with deficient NOS

knowledge to teach NOS, we compared the NOS-teaching performances of Group

B with those of Group A. We collected the videotapes of the NOS instruction of all

teachers, and developed the NOS Teaching Observation Protocol (NOSTOP) to

measure the teachers’ NOS-teaching performance. NOSTOP was extended from

the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) (Piburn et al., 2000).

RTOP had 25 items measuring the degree of the reform characterizing K-12 class-

room instruction in science or mathematics. Six items were added to construct

NOSTOP. For example, item #27 reads ‘The teacher understands the content of

the NOS involved in this unit’. As a result, a total of 31 items were used to detect

the teachers’ NOS-teaching performance in terms of six aspects. These aspects

matched the three-dimensional NOS teaching model, including (1) classroom man-

agement, (2) intention to teach NOS, corresponding to the first dimension, (3)

inquiry experience, corresponding to the second dimension, (4) classroom discourse,

corresponding to the third dimension, (5) science concept, and (6) NOS concept, cor-

responding to the third dimension (Table 3). Like RTOP, NOSTOP used a Likert-

type scale that ranges from 0 (never occurred) to 4 (very descriptive). In addition

to the score, the observers wrote their comments on each aspect.

Piburn and Sawada (2009) provided the norms for RTOP scores in mathematics

and science classrooms. The mean scores were 50.0, 41.8, and 37.6 for middle

school teachers, high school teachers, and university instructors, respectively. For uni-

versity instructors who have received training in teaching excellence, the mean score

was increased to 61.7. RTOP had 25 items, whereas NOSTOP had 31 items. Thus we

extrapolated from Pibum and Sawada’s research and the number of items in

NOSTOP to obtain the score 62 as a criterion for satisfactory teaching. The validity

and reliability of NOSTOP are discussed in the data analysis section.

In order to build basic understanding of teachers before the NOS teaching, the first

author used a 11-question protocol to conduct semi-structured interviews. The

Table 3. The Categories and the items in the NOSTOP

Categories

Item

quantity Teacher knowledge in the categories of NOSTOP

Classroom

management

4 PK for classroom management (e.g., providing positive learning

environment)

Intention 3 PK for intention of explicit NOS teaching (e.g., designing

activities for understanding of NOS)

Inquiry 9 PK for implementation of inquiry teaching (e.g., providing

opportunities to test students’ ideas)

Discourse 9 PK for argumentation and persuasion (e.g., providing

opportunities to share students’ ideas)

Science concept 5 CK about science concepts

NOS concept 1 CK about NOS (e.g., understanding the content of NOS

guidelines)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

interview protocol included teachers’ backgrounds, beliefs in science, science learning

and teaching, knowledge of NOS and NOS-teaching, science-teaching models, prior

experiences of NOS learning and teaching, and use of teachers’ guides.

Moreover, an open-ended questionnaire was developed and administered after the

NOS teaching to investigate the teachers’ perceptions of the usefulness of the guide. It

focused on the guide’s usefulness in terms of improving teacher reflection, knowledge

and teaching practice. The teachers stated which pages in the guide were the most

useful for learning NOS teaching. It was administered only once because it would

not make sense to the participants before they used the teachers’ guide. In

addition to the usefulness of the teachers’ guide, the teachers responded with what

changes they perceived their beliefs to have undergone regarding science,

teaching, and learning, and they also self-evaluated their improvement of NOS-

CK, NOS-PCK, teaching practice, and intention to integrate NOS into future curri-

cula. Parts of these data were triangulated with their responses in the abovementioned

interviews.

Furthermore, we conducted a focus-group interview for 2 h to explore the effective

features of the guide. Ten teachers using the guide participated in the focus-group

meeting. The first author provided them with a 10-question discussion sheet and

encouraged them to present their responses. The discussion sheet was based on tea-

chers’ responses in the open-ended questionnaire to design, and then was examined

by the research team. Especially, the useful pages in the guide were induced into

some specific features. These features led the first author to propose the discussion

questions, including teachers’ selection and explanations of useful features in the

guide, comments and suggestions for the guide, teacher-needed designs in guides,

helpful designs for teacher reflection, opinions regarding guides as teacher learning

tools, explanation of how the guide assisted teachers to implement NOS teaching,

and explanation of how it changed teachers’ beliefs. For example, the teachers were

asked to choose, individually, the useful designs from 10 innovative features in the

guide, and then they would raise a hand to identify that a certain characteristic had

been useful in the preparation of NOS instruction. The first author counted the

number of raised hands, invited these teachers to share some explanations as to

their perceptions, and guided them to engage in further discussion on the basis of a

consensus of opinion.

Data Analysis

We developed rubrics to score the 10 open-ended questions in the NOS test for a

maximum possible score of 20. Students’ responses were coded and scored using

scoring rubrics which were designed on the basis of the student responses in the

pilot study. The description of four NOS concepts defined in some of the literature

(e.g., AAAS, 1989; Schwartz et al., 2004) helped us to determine the conceptual

accuracy and completeness of the responses, and then to build the codes. Students’

responses to each question were scored 2, 1 or 0, referring to adequate, partially ade-

quate, and inadequate NOS conceptions, respectively. After the establishment of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

scoring rubrics, two science educators examined the rubrics to establish the content

and construct validity. Two raters, who were research assistants with a science

background and had received 3 h of NOS scoring-training, independently scored

the pre- and post-tests. The average inter-rater reliability was 90.1%. The first

author participated in resolving any disagreements.

The Statistical Package for Social Science was used to establish descriptive statistics

for students’ learning assessments and teachers’ teaching performance. Paired t-tests

were used to analyze the change between the pre- and post-tests of the NOS test. We

calculated the effect size of the t-tests by dividing the mean difference with standard

deviation. Students’ responses on individual questions before and after the interven-

tion were compared with Chi-square tests.

Each teacher’s videotapes were watched and scored by three trained scorers. Totally

12 trained scorers who studied in a graduate institute of science education were

trained for 8 h in the NOSTOP workshop. They had all taken at least three credits

of graduate courses in NOS. They were then divided into four groups to code the

videotapes of the 10 teachers. All scorers scored the same videotapes of two teachers

and then discussed the scores together. According to the above-mentioned scoring

procedure, each group of three scorers scored the same videotapes of two teachers

and then discussed the scores together. As suggested in the RTOP protocol, if the

difference among the three scorers for an item was not within +1, the scorers

jointly re-watched the videotape and rescore the item.

According to Piburn and Sawada (2009), the validity of RTOP was acceptable

through testing face validity, construct validity and predictive validity. The reliability

of RTOP was very high through testing inter-rater reliability (R2 ¼ 0.954, p , 0.01)

and internal consistency (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.97) (Sawada et al., 2002). In our

NOSTOP, six more items were added. An expert panel composed of seven science

educators examined the 31 items and the six aspects of the three-dimensional NOS

teaching model to establish their face and content validity. We followed the test of con-

struct validity suggested by Pibum and Sawada using each subscale to predict the total

score. Based on the videos from 21 elementary teachers, the R2 of six subscales (i.e.,

classroom management: 0.79, intention: 0.83, inquiry: 0.87, discourse: 0.51, science

concept: 0.92, NOS concept: 0.69) were medium to high, offering support for the

construct validity of NOSTOP. The average inter-rater reliability among the four

group scorers was 85%.

We had the record of teacher interviews and the focus-group interviews transcribed.

The most useful sections of the guide were identified by calculating the teachers’

responses. Moreover, we coded the teachers’ explanations of why certain sections

were or were not beneficial, and teachers’ responses to the open-ended questionnaire

about their changes in beliefs and teaching practices, perceptions of personal knowl-

edge improvement, and intention of integrating NOS into future curricula.

The definition of instrument validity is ‘the extent to which an instrument actually

measures what it is supposed to measure’ (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). The open-

ended questionnaire was developed by the first author according to the first research

question. Other co-authors examined the 10 questions to establish their face and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

content validity. Furthermore, we used some strategies to decrease validity threats.

Maxwell (1996) argued that getting evidence can help us rule out validity threats.

In each open-ended question, teachers needed to provide evidence for their responses

to validate their perceptions or changes. For example, question 8 states ‘In your

opinions, what is science learning? After the use of this NOS teaching material,

have your beliefs about science learning changed? Please state what changes have

occurred to you’. The responses provided not only evidence that the teachers per-

ceived changes in their beliefs, but also opportunities to identify their changes

through comparing their responses before and after using the NOS guide. A few inde-

terminate responses in the open-ended questionnaire were clarified by a follow-up

teacher interview. Almost every teacher’s changes in beliefs which were analyzed

from the two data sources approached a high degree of congruence (i.e., reliability).

For teachers’ changes in knowledge, we substantiated all teachers’ claims by compar-

ing the data from the teacher interviews and from the NOSTOP scorers’ records. In

brief, due to the small sample size, no statistic index of validity and reliability was cal-

culated. We relied on triangulation to deal with the validity threat of self-report bias in

the open-ended questionnaire.

To enhance the validity of our results, two researchers independently analyzed the

teachers’ responses to the open-ended questionnaire and the focus-group interview

transcripts. They reviewed each other’s analyses and interpretations, and the results

were discussed until consensus was reached.

Results

In this results section, we first present the changes in teachers’ beliefs, and teachers’

perceptions of personal improvement to examine the effects and usefulness of the

guide on teacher learning. Second, we present the NOS teaching performance of

the Group A and B teachers. Third, we describe the results of the students’ learning

outcomes related to NOS. Finally, useful features of the guide are discussed.

Teachers’ Perceptions of Changes in Beliefs, Knowledge, and Intention of Teaching NOS

An open-ended questionnaire was administered to the teachers after the unit to assess

their beliefs about science, teaching and learning, NOS-CK and -PCK, and intention

of teaching NOS in future curricula. The results are summarized in Table 4. The tea-

chers responded positively in most aspects. Regarding their beliefs, most of them

expressed a significant change. Their responding paragraph showed that their

beliefs had changed to be more consistent with contemporary views. For example,

Chang reflected on her view of science teaching:

In the past, I thought that science teaching was to provide students with the best and most

efficient way to learn science. It saves students from spending time doing experiments.

But, now, I find that there’s a lot of nature of science embedded in the process of students’

hands-on work. The three-dimensional teaching model can help me guide [students] to

understand the nature of science. (Chang_090223_TGQ)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Their views of science changed from science as a body of knowledge to science as an

enterprise resulting from interactions of knowledge, process, and the scientific com-

munity. Their views of science learning also underwent such a change. For example,

they noted,

In the past, I thought that science was all about knowing about natural phenomena. But

now I think that science is also about the process of knowledge formation through obser-

vation, experimentation, and inference. Scientific knowledge is a consensus about knowl-

edge that most people accept. (Wu_090315_TGQ)

Before the usage of the nature of science material, I thought that science learning is to

catch the main ideas in the textbook, link to old experience of learning, and then integrate

different concepts. However, after the usage of the nature of science material, I think that

science learning involves not only the learning of science concepts, but also an under-

standing of the principles of how science knowledge is formed. (Chung_ 090225_TGQ)

Concerning NOS-CK and -PCK, Table 6 revealed that the teachers, regardless of

their prior knowledge of NOS, were positively affected by the guide. For example,

Lu responded that ‘I had a rough understanding of NOS curriculum guidelines

before using the guide, but I had more and more accurate understanding because

of learning the main contents and key concepts of these [NOS curriculum] guidelines’

(Lu_090806_TGQ). Chen responded that ‘the guide helps me understand the theory

of nature of science instruction [the three-dimensional teaching model] and teaching

strategies for integrating nature of science into the curriculum. This understanding (of

NOS-PCK) is beneficial to my science teaching’ (Chen_090806_TGQ). Seven

Table 4. Teachers’ perceptions of changes in their beliefs, knowledge, teaching practices, and their

intention of NOS teaching and NOSTOP scoresa

Teacher

Changes

in beliefs

(S, L, T)bUnderstanding

of NOS-CK

Understanding

of NOS-PCK

Teaching

practices

Intention

of NOS

teaching

NOSTOP

scores

Group A

Lee — — � — � 80

Lin S, T — � — � 76

Lai — — � � � 66

Hsu S, L � � � � 38

Hung S, L � � � � 63

Wu S, L, T � � � � 58

Group B

Lu S, L � � � � 59

Chang S, L � � � � 76

Chen S, L, T � � — � 55

Chung S, L, T � � � � 61

aA arrow mark (�) means improvement. A flat line (—) means no change.

bThe letters in the parentheses mean that a teacher had a positive change in beliefs related to science

(S), to learning (L), or to teaching (T) after NOS implementation.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

teachers thought that their teaching practices had yielded greater improvements than

their original science teaching had. All of the teachers also declared that they can use

the professional knowledge in the guide to integrate NOS into future curricula. For

example, Lu responded that ‘the statement of teaching strategies in the teaching

guidelines is rather clear and the supplementary section provides the key teaching pur-

poses of each nature of science curriculum guideline. These can help me integrate

nature of science into other units’ (Lu_090806_TGQ). These positive responses

showed that the guide had provided the teachers with professional knowledge to

enhance their teaching confidence and their NOS-instruction abilities.

Furthermore, individual teachers’ data shed light on how the guide supported

various learning needs. For example, teachers with robust NOS-CK had higher

scores in NOSTOP. The guide promoted their NOS-PCK. During their use of the

guide, these teachers focused on NOS-PCK learning. For example,

My understanding of the four nature of science curriculum guidelines before teaching is

similar with that after teaching. However, I have more understanding of students’ ideas of

nature of science after teaching. Furthermore, the guide provides teaching reminders, an

activity framework, detailed descriptions of teaching procedures, students’ possible per-

formance and so on. These help my science teaching a lot. (Lai_090203_TGQ)

For most teachers, the guide improved their understanding of both NOS-CK and

-PCK as shown in Table 4.

Finally, not all of the teachers could get used to reflecting on their existing beliefs or

teaching practices. In the focus-group interview, Hsu stated frankly: ‘During the

teaching preparation, engaging in thinking is hard for teachers, because they are

too busy to reflect. I suggest that the developers should provide the answers directly

after posing the teacher-thinking questions’ (Hsu_090511_Focus). Although he was

the only teacher who mentioned reflection being troublesome, a certain percentage

of teachers in the field might have similar attitudes. Hsu’s score was the lowest

among the 10 teachers. On Hsu’s NOSTOP record, one observer commented that

he provided students with fragmentary inquiry-type activities (e.g., conducting exper-

iments, engaging in thinking, and writing down personal ideas), but he seldom

revealed a whole picture of inquiry to the students or discussed with the students

the NOS embedded in the inquiry activities. In comparison with Hsu’s description

in the interview about his science teaching before his use of the NOS material, we

found that he barely changed his teaching. By contrast, other teachers thought that

the guide had provided them with many opportunities for reflection, thereby support-

ing possible modifications to personal teaching approaches. In summary, we have

found some supporting data that if teachers do not reflect on their teaching, it is

hard to influence their beliefs and to improve their teaching performance.

Teaching Performance

To examine the practical effect of the guide, we compared the NOS teaching perform-

ance of Groups A and B. The mean NOSTOP scores for Groups A and B were 63.50


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

(SD ¼ 14.94) and 62.75 (SD ¼ 9.18), respectively. These data indicate that the

teaching performance of both groups was similar and higher than 62, the critical

score for satisfactory teaching. Moreover, we analyzed the mean NOSTOP scores

in the six subcategories (Table 5). The mean scores among the two groups were

similar in all aspects except the NOS concept. Group A had a higher score than

Group B regarding NOS-CK. Nevertheless, this result indicates that the teachers

who had deficient NOS knowledge (Group B) could perform as well as the teachers

with NOS knowledge (Group A). In other words, the guide was effective in support-

ing teachers to enact NOS instruction.

Learning Outcomes

Students taught by both groups of teachers used the NOS material to study the Dis-

solving unit. Table 6 shows that students in both groups exhibited significant improve-

ments in learning NOS concepts, t ¼ 10.38, 10.15, p , 0.001, for groups A and B,

respectively. Both had big effect sizes. For example, regarding the formation of scien-

tific knowledge in school science, merely 1% of students in the pretest addressed both

the empirical and social dynamic features (shortened to ‘adequate view’ hereafter);

41.5% could name one of the features, mostly the empirical feature (shortened to

‘partially adequate view’ hereafter); and 57.5% provided none or irrelevant responses

Table 6. Test data of NOS concepts in Dissolving unit

Pretest M (SD)a Posttest M (SD) t-Value Effect size

Total (n ¼ 200) 7.25 (4.29) 11.38 (4.09) 14.32∗∗∗ 0.99

Group A (n ¼ 84) 7.08 (3.83) 12.06 (4.20) 10.38∗∗∗ 1.24

Group B (n ¼ 116) 7.37 (4.61) 10.89 (3.95) 10.15∗∗∗ 0.82

aMaximum score was 20.

∗∗∗p , 0.001.

Table 5. Teaching performance of NOS instruction measured by NOSTOP

Categories

Group A (n ¼ 6)

M (SD)

Group B (n ¼ 4)

M (SD)

Difference (MA 2 MB)/

numbers of items

Classroom

management

9.83 (1.60) 10.00 (1.43) 20.04

Intention 5.17 (2.32) 4.75 (2.36) 0.14

Inquiry 18.67 (4.32) 17.00 (3.37) 0.19

Discourse 11.00 (2.53) 12.25 (0.96) 20.14

Science concept 16.67 (4.84) 17.25 (2.22) 20.12

NOS concept 2.17 (0.75) 1.50 (0.58) 0.67

Total 63.50 (14.94) 62.75 (9.18) 0.02


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

(shortened to ‘inadequate view’ hereafter). Upon the posttest, the distribution

changed to 11.5%, 64.5% and 22.5%. A significant percentage of students had a

partially adequate view, i.e., noticing at least one feature of how their knowledge

about science was constructed. Similarly, when the context was switched to the

science community, their views about the formation of scientific knowledge among

scientists were improved from 8.5% adequate, 53.5% partially adequate and 38%

inadequate to 19.5, 65 and 15.5%. In both school and science community contexts,

the students in groups A and B all improved significantly from the pre- to the post-

test, x2A = 37.133, x2

B = 20.916, p , 0.001 for school science and x2A = 24.671,

x2B = 9.170, p , 0.01 for science community. Groups A and B performed similarly

and did not differ in the pretest or the posttest scores. Although Group A teachers

were equipped with more NOS knowledge, their classes did not perform better in

the beginning. This result suggests that the NOS material and the guide are necessary

to activate NOS teaching. Moreover, the results indicated that Group B teachers,

albeit with deficient NOS knowledge in the beginning, were capable of improving

students’ understanding of NOS through the use of the guide.

Useful Features in the Teachers’ Guide

Table 7 displays the frequency of each feature being recognized as helpful by teachers

in the focus-group interview. Most features were highly recognized. Specifically, all

participants mentioned that the three-dimensional teaching model had provided

them with a framework to teach NOS. The guide explicitly indicated NOS concepts

and the NOS teaching model in each teaching procedure (Feature 1). This feature

helped the teachers understand the meaning of NOS concepts and the NOS

teaching model. Moreover, it helped them to grasp the abstract rationale of NOS

instruction:

I read the rationale of nature of science instruction (the 3-dimensional teaching model),

but I couldn’t understand it. However, when I read over the teaching procedure, I could

understand the rationale of nature of science instruction. During the teaching-prep-

aration period, I read these two parts alternatively. (Chung_090511_Focus)

During the implementation of NOS instruction, I reviewed the part on the rationale of

NOS instruction repeatedly. I understood it more and more. (Wu_090215_TGQ)

For both teachers who possessed little NOS knowledge like Chung and those who had

attended several NOS professional development workshop before like Wu, it was dif-

ficult to realize the rationales for teaching NOS. This study found that an explicit link

between the procedure and the rationale of NOS instruction diminished the difficulty.

In other words, the teachers made sense of the abstract rationale of NOS instruction

in the context of teaching practice. Explicitly indicating the NOS teaching in the

suggested teaching activities was crucial for the teachers to buy the importance of

NOS teaching. Furthermore, teachers who had NOS knowledge like Wu would

obtain more understanding of NOS instruction stemming from the statement on

teaching rationale.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Features 2 and 6, which were related to NOS-PCK, also received high attention.

Overall, the most helpful features were those that provided the teachers with NOS-

PCK and NOS-CK information in a teaching context (Features 1–6), rather than

those that provided this information outside the teaching context (Features 7, 9,

10). This demonstrated that presenting the NOS in a teaching context benefits

teachers’ efforts to learn about the NOS in science curricula and to teach the NOS.

All participants except Hsu thought that the design of teacher-thinking questions

(Feature 3) was beneficial to NOS learning. For example, Hung indicated that ‘

When I used the guide to prepare the lesson, teacher thinking questions made me

reflect on my science teaching and focus on NOS concepts . . .. I can find related

teaching knowledge in the teaching guidance . . . Sometimes I used these questions

to discuss nature of science with the students’ (Hung_20090511_Focus). They

expressed that the teacher-thinking questions helped them to reflect on their existing

teaching and to focus on learning the NOS teaching goals. This near unanimity indi-

cates that the function of teacher thinking worked effectively in the guide.

Table 7 reveals that the teachers appreciated three kinds of features: (1) features

explicitly indicating NOS teaching practices, including NOS concepts, the teaching

model, pedagogy, and student-learning content and progress (features 1 and 6), (2)

features related to building pedagogical knowledge of the NOS teaching model,

inquiry-type instruction, and discussion (features 2, 6, and 7), and (3) features

Table 7. The percentages of teachers perceiving certain helpful features in the guide for

NOS-instruction learning

FeaturesaPercentage of teachers

(%)

1. Explicitly indicating NOS concepts and the NOS teaching model on

each teaching procedure (T)

100

2. Enhancing pedagogical knowledge for inquiry and classroom discussion

in the section on pedagogical guidance (T)

100

3. Providing questions for teacher thinking at the beginning of the

guidance for each activity (T)

90

4. Providing an embedded assessment at the end of each activity (L) 90

5. Providing extensive learning with footnotes and keywords (T, S) 80

6. Designing a set of teaching guidelines for each inquiry activity, including

questions for teacher thinking, reduced Student Edition pages in TG,

teaching procedure, and pedagogical guidance (T)

80

7. Explaining the model of NOS instruction (I) 70

8. Providing alternative questions for students possessing different levels of

understanding (T)

40

9. Introducing the importance of NOS and the meaning of NOS concepts (I) 30

10. Aligning NOS concepts with NOS guidelines (I) 30

aThe capital letter in parentheses refers to different sections in the guide: the introductory section

(I), the teaching section (T), the learning section (L), and the supplements section (S).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

guiding teachers’ thinking and autonomous extensive learning (features 3–5). The

first two kinds are related to how to teach NOS, and the third kind shows teachers’

intention to learn NOS.

Discussion and Conclusion

The results show that an educative guide provides effective practical and affective

support for teachers to incorporate NOS into their teaching. On the one hand, the

guide promoted teacher reflection on their beliefs of teaching, learning, and

science. They perceived a boost in NOS-CK and -PCK. Their NOS teaching per-

formance was improved and students’ NOS learning outcomes changed significantly.

On the other hand, regarding the affective aspect, they had an intention to teach NOS

in the future. Especially, the guide may provide effective supports to ordinary teachers

who possess inadequate understanding of NOS but have learning motivation. They

were able to perform similarly with teachers who had prior NOS knowledge.

Equally important, the guide made teachers feel competent regarding integrating

NOS into their curriculum design. Teachers’ intention and confidence are crucial

for carrying out NOS instruction. Teachers’ NOS knowledge, teaching abilities,

and beliefs of NOS as an essential component in science instruction influence their

intention of teaching NOS (Schwartz & Lederman, 2002). The guide could help tea-

chers to initiate their intention of teaching NOS.

Based on the teaching outcome of Group B, a research-based teachers’ guide is able

to improve teachers’ ability to learn NOS instruction through learning by teaching

rather than through professional programs or workshops. However, this does not

mean that the guide is able to be substituted for a professional development workshop.

In the group interview, two members of Group B actively said that if they could have

participated in the workshop before their NOS teaching, they would have understood

more and taught better than they did in their first NOS teaching. In other words, the

guide is expected to work effectively with professional development workshops.

For most teachers, NOS teaching is new and difficult to implement. A research-

based teachers’ guide provides two functions for teacher learning. The first is an

enhancer to professional development. Many studies have reported improvement in

NOS instruction after teachers have been involved in extensive, long-term pro-

fessional development programs or have studied related topics in graduate-level

courses (Akerson, Cullen, & Hanson, 2009; Akerson & Hanuscin, 2007). Much

effort has been put into providing opportunities for teachers to share repertoire,

knowledge, and practice experience, and to collaborate with researchers. Moreover,

only a limited number of participants can be taken in each professional development

workshop. For the extension of innovative teaching, it is still limited. It is noted that

few researchers have put efforts into developing a teachers’ guide by using evidence of

teachers’ learning. A research-based teachers’ guide is not like the guidance provided

by researchers in workshops, but is developed by researchers and school teachers after

workshops. Thus, a research-based teachers’ guide can be used in follow-up work-

shops to enhance the effects of professional development. For teachers who have


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

attended professional programs, teachers’ guides can support their knowledge and

teaching skills, as suggested by Hanuscin et al. (2011).

The second function of a research-based teachers’ guide is as a self-learning/reflec-

tion tool. Martin and Hand (2009) have found in their longitudinal professional

program that teachers need time to surrender their familiar repertoire of apparently

successful skills and to realize a substantive change therein. Teacher guides have the

advantage of giving teachers ample time to surrender their familiar teaching repertoire

to reformed practices. The results of the present study indicate that teachers need

time to read theory (e.g., the three-dimensional teaching model) and practice (e.g.,

teaching procedure) repeatedly to understand reformed teaching. Through using

the guide, they could learn and reflect on science teaching at anytime. In sum, tea-

chers’ guides could be designed as self-contained and allow teachers to learn at

their own pace.

To help teachers implement new ideas and strategies in the classroom is essential

to professional development. Carefully designed features of a teachers’ guide can

afford teachers many opportunities to implement pertinent ideas and strategies.

This study developed an educative guide through a systematic approach, including

expanding criteria for the guide, studying teachers’ use of guides, collecting tea-

chers’ needs and difficulties for teaching NOS, and inputting innovative features

to the guide. According to the results, we summarize four key points of guide

design for learning NOS-instruction. First, learning abstract knowledge (e.g.,

NOS-CK and -PCK) in the teaching context can improve teachers’ understanding

of the abstract knowledge. It is noted that most teachers are not concerned with the

detailed teaching procedures in traditional teachers’ guides (Lin et al., 2011), but

the teachers in this study got great support from the detailed teaching procedures.

Abstract knowledge becomes more meaningful or vivid when it is presented in a

teaching context. Second, professional terms related to teaching practices need to

be indicated explicitly, such as NOS concepts and the teaching model. Third, a

guide needs to provide pedagogical knowledge for specific teaching strategies.

Finally, a guide should guide teachers in reflection, and provide resources for

autonomous extensive learning.

The results have revealed that reflection questions modify teachers’ beliefs. The

majority of the teachers appreciated the function of teacher thinking, which promoted

their reflection on their own existing teaching and helped them improve their teaching

practices. Hipkins and Barker (2005) indicated that some teachers understand NOS

well, but that they cannot teach NOS using effective teaching strategies. Teachers

who can use effective teaching strategies to teach NOS need enough NOS-PCK

and reflection to change their beliefs and teaching practice. A guide supporting

NOS teaching should perform the dual functions of providing teaching resources

and stimulating teacher reflection.

Several limitations exist in this study. The results regarding the comparison of

Group A and B may not be generalized beyond these participants. For example,

the small number of participant teachers may influence the validity of the statistics

used to analyze the useful features in the guide. Group B teachers volunteered to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

participate in this study due to their motivation to learn about innovative teaching;

they may not be able to represent ordinary teachers who lack such motivation.

Some other influencing factors such as school culture and class size were also not

able to be controlled.

K-12 curriculum materials should communicate the rationales of reform to tea-

chers (Davis & Krajcik, 2005; Remillard, 2000). However, most curriculum materials

have come under fire for paying too little attention to effective illustrations regarding

rationales of teacher learning. Our study focuses on helping teachers learn reformed

rationales such as NOS teaching through an educative guide. The contribution of this

study provides empirical evidence of practical and affective supports for learning

reformed teaching and to find out the key design principles of an educative guide.

Moreover, this approach strategically prompts teachers to foresee critical teaching

moments before enacting a teaching plan, and promotes reflect-on-actions afterward.

We suggest the textbook publishers and science educators apply these design prin-

ciples: (1) highlight a focused pedagogy in teaching procedures; (2) scaffold users’

integration of targeted aspects before and during instruction along with reduced

Student Edition pages in the guide; (3) provide information about the principles,

models, and pedagogical knowledge of the instruction at hand; and (4) encourage

users to reflect on teaching actions. We think these are the keys to designing educative

guides. In future research, researchers may conduct a follow-up study to compare the

effects of Group A and B teachers’ continuous NOS teaching without the guide.

Furthermore, it is worth investigating to develop a comprehensive understanding of

designing teacher’s guides and the nature of teacher learning under the support of

educative curriculum materials.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Prof. Mei-Hung Chiu, and two reviewers for their

thoughtful comments on early drafts of the paper and the National Research

Council for financial support (NSC 96-2522-S-003-016-MY2 and NSC 98-2511-

S-009-001).

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary

science courses: Abandoning scientism, but. . .. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12,

215–233.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on stu-

dents’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1095.

Akerson, V.L., Cullen, T.A., & Hanson, D.L. (2009). Fostering a community of practice through a

professional development programme to improve elementary teachers’ views of nature of

science and teaching practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1090–1113.

Akerson, V.L., & Hanuscin, D.L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-

year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5),

653–680.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1989). Science for all American:

Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1998). Blueprints for reform:

Science, mathematics, and technology education. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ball, D.L., & Cohen, D. K. C. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of cur-

riculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9),

6–8, 14.

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’ understandings of the nature of science and

scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487–509.

Beyer, C.J., Delgado, C., Davis, E.A., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Investigating teacher learning supports

in high school biology curricular programs to inform the design of educative curriculum

materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 977–998.

Bianchini, J., & Colburn, A. (2000). Teaching the nature of science through inquiry to prospective

elementary teachers: A tale of two researchers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2),

177–209.

Carmines, E.G., & Zeller, R.A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Chen, S. (2006). Development of an instrument to assess views on nature of science and attitudes

toward teaching science. Science Education, 90(5), 803–819.

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.

Clough, M.P., & Olson, J.K. (2008). Teaching and assessing the nature of science: An introduction.

Science & Education, 17(2–3), 143–145.

Davis, E.A., & Krajcik, J.S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher

learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.

Doyle, W. (1990). Classroom knowledge as a foundation for teaching. In S. Tozer, T.H. Anderson,

& B.B. Armbruster (Eds.), Foundational studies in teacher education: Reexamination (pp. 49–60).

New York: Teachers College Press.

Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2008). Learning from curriculum materials: Scaffolds for teacher

learning? Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2014–2026.

Hanuscin, D.L., Lee, M.H., & Akerson, V.L. (2011). Elementary teachers’ pedagogical content

knowledge for teaching the nature of science. Science Education, 95(1), 145–167.

Hipkins, R., & Barker, M. (2005). Teaching the ‘nature of science’: Modest adaptions or radical

reconceptions? International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 243–254.

Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J.E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up?

Findings from project 2061’s curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

39(6), 522–549.

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(7), 551–578.

Kim, S.Y., & Irving, K.E. (2010). History of science as an instructional context learning in genetics

and nature of science. Science & Education, 19(2), 187–215.

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. (2006a). Research on nature of science: Reflections on the past, anticipations of

the future. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 1–11.

Lederman, N.G. (2006b). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L.B.

Flick & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 301–317). Dordrecht,

The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Lederman, N.G., & Zeidler, D.L. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Do

they really influence teacher behavior? Science Education, 70(5), 721–734.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Lin, S.F., Chang, W.H., & Cheng, Y.J. (2011). The perceived usefulness of teachers’ guides for

science teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(6), 1367–1389.

Lin, C.-Y., Cheng, J.-H., & Chang, W.-H. (2010). Making science vivid: Using a historical episodes

map. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2521–2531.

Liu, S.-Y., & Lederman, N.G. (2007). Exploring prospective teachers’ worldviews and conceptions

of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(10), 1281–1307.

Martin, A.M., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument on the

elementary science classroom: A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1),

17–38.

Matthews, M. (1994). Science teaching; The role of history and philosophy of science. New York:

Routledge.

Maxwell, J.A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publication.

McNeill, K.L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the

effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 45(1), 53–78.

Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2006). Guideline for grade 1–9 science and technology curriculum.

Taipei: Author.

National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP]. (1989). Science objectives: 1990 assessment.

Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.

Piburn, M., & Sawada, D. (2009). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP): Reference manual.

ACEPT IN-003.

Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Falconer, K., Turley, J. Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2000). Reformed Teaching

Observation Protocol (RTOP). ACEPT IN-003.

Posner, G.J. (2004). Analyzing the curriculum (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Powell, J.C., & Anderson, R.D. (2002). Changing teachers’ practice: Curriculum materials and

science education reform in the USA. Studies in Science Education, 37(1), 107–136.

Remillard, J.T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers’ learning? Two fourth-grade

teachers’ use of a new mathematics text. The Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 331–350.

Remillard, J.T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curri-

cula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.

Sawada, D., Piburn, M.D., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002).

Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching

observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 245–253.

Schneider, R.M., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative

curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 167–217.

Schneider, R.M., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials:

The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

42(3), 283–312.

Schwartz, M. (2006). For whom do we write the curriculum? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4),

449–457.

Schwartz, R.S., & Lederman, N.G. (2002). It’s the nature of the beast: The influence of knowledge

and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teach-

ing, 39(3), 205–236.

Schwartz, R.S., Lederman, N.G., & Crawford, B.A. (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 Education, 88(4), 610–645.

Shkedi, A. (1995). Teachers’ attitudes toward a teachers’ guide: Implementations for the roles of

planners and teachers. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 10(2), 155–170.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Tsai, C.C. (2002). Nested epistemologies: Science teachers’ beliefs of teaching, learning and

science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 771–783.

Van Den Akker, J. (1998). The science curriculum: Between ideals and outcomes. In B.J. Fraser &

K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 421–447).

Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Yore, L., & Shymansky, J.A. (1992). Effective use of textual materials in elementary and middle

school science classrooms. Leslie Johnstone B.C. Catalyst, 11–17.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

iver

pool

] at

01:

05 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

affording explicit-reflective science teaching by using an educative teachers’ guide

Documents