one course is not enough: preservice elementary teachers' retention of improved views of nature...

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 43, NO. 2, PP. 194–213 (2006)

One Course Is Not Enough: Preservice Elementary Teachers’Retention of Improved Views of Nature of Science

Valarie L. Akerson,1 Judith A. Morrison,2 Amy Roth McDuffie2

1School of Education, Indiana University, 201 North Rose Avenue, Bloomington, Indiana 47405

2College of Education, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington

Received 7 September 2004; Accepted 22 February 2005

Abstract: This study examined the views, and the retention of these views, of 19 preservice

elementary teachers as they learned about nature of science (NOS). The preservice teachers participated in a

cohort group as they took a science methods course during which they received explicit reflective

instruction in nature of science. Through Views of Nature of Science version B (VNOS-B) surveys and

interviews it was found that most preservice teachers held inadequate ideas of nature of science prior to

instruction, but improved their views after one semester of instruction in the science methods course.

However, 5 months after instruction, the graduate preservice teachers were again interviewed and it was

found that several of the students reverted back to their earlier views. The results are interpreted through

Perry’s scheme, and implications and recommendations for elementary science teacher education are made.

� 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 43: 194–213, 2006

An understanding of the nature of science (NOS) has long been deemed an important

component of scientific literacy (AAAS, 1993; DeBoer, 1991). It is not sufficient for students to

have an understanding of only science content, but to also develop informed ideas for how

scientists go about their work, along with the values and assumptions they make while developing

scientific knowledge, or the nature of science. Without an understanding of NOS students are

likely to develop an idea that science is ‘‘done’’ and is a list of facts to memorize. To help K-6

students develop appropriate views of NOS, teachers need to have informed views of scientific

endeavors. However, recent research has illustrated that elementary teachers generally do not have

adequate understandings of NOS (e.g., Abell & Smith, 1994). It is impossible for teachers to teach

appropriate views of NOS without holding appropriate views themselves. Therefore, a major task

for elementary science teacher educators is to improve elementary teachers’ understandings of

NOS so they can help their own students develop appropriate ideas. Although it is not certain

whether substantial changes in elementary teachers’ conceptions can be achieved in a single

Correspondence to: V.L. Akerson; E-mail: [email protected]

DOI 10.1002/tea.20099

Published online 17 November 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

� 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

science methods course, there is support for success in enhancing NOS conceptions in such a

setting (e.g., Barufaldi, Bethel, & Lamb, 1977; Shapiro, 1996), particularly when using an explicit

reflective approach to help teachers develop more accurate conceptions of some NOS aspects

(Abd-El-Khalick & Akerson, 2004; Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick, & Lederman, 2000; Akerson &

Abd-El-Khalick, 2003). However, it is not clear whether they retain these new conceptions beyond

the course. Without continued explicit reflection on these aspects, are the new understandings

retained? Are other supports required to help these preservice teachers retain their new

understandings? The purpose of this study was to see how preservice elementary teachers changed

their understandings of target aspects of NOS, and whether those new ideas were retained over the

initial year of their major coursework in education.

Nature of Science

Nature of science (NOS) refers to the epistemology of science, science as a way of knowing,

or the values and beliefs inherent to the development of scientific knowledge (Lederman, 1992).

Elementary teachers are required to help their students develop understandings of NOS that are in

line with those espoused in the reforms (e.g., American Association for the Advancement of

Science, 1993; National Research Council, 1996) so we have chosen these as definitions of

appropriate NOS views. In their nature of science position statement the National Science

Teachers Association (NSTA, 2000) recommends that science, along with its methods, explana-

tions, and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes. Their position

on what teachers and students should know includes that: (a) scientific knowledge is both reliable

(one can have confidence in scientific knowledge) and tentative (subject to change in light of new

evidence or reconceptualization of prior evidence); (b) no single scientific method exists, but there

are shared characteristics of scientific approaches to science, such as scientific explanations being

supported by empirical evidence, and are testable against the natural world; (c) creativity plays a

role in the development of scientific knowledge; (d) there is a relationship between theories and

laws; (e) there is a relationship between observations and inferences; (f) although science strives

for objectivity, there is always an element of subjectivity in the development of scientific

knowledge; and (g) social and cultural context also play a role in the development of scientific

knowledge. It is these NOS elements that are the focus of this study.

Common Misconceptions of Nature of Science

Previous research has shown that elementary teachers typically have misconceptions

regarding NOS prior to interventions (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick, 2001; Akerson et al., 2000;

McComas, 1996). Misconceptions about the relationship of observations and inferences, for

instance, ignore the inferential nature of science, with teachers tending to believe that one must be

able to ‘‘see’’ or directly sense something in order to know its meaning (e.g., to know what an atom

looks like someone must have seen it through a microscope). Regarding the relationships between

theory and law, misconceptions tend to be that theories are ‘‘weaker’’ forms of science, and with

enough evidence they will become the better form of science, or laws. Thus, they also believe in

certain scientific knowledge, and that knowledge is generally described through scientific laws,

indicating a misconception of the tentative nature of science. The teachers tend to believe that,

once science finds the answers, it does not change. Because most elementary teachers tend to

believe that ‘‘seeing is knowing’’ they do not see the role of creativity and imagination in the

development of scientific knowledge, believing instead that scientific creativity and imagination

might be used in designing ways to solve problems. Many also do not recognize the role of

TEACHERS’ RETENTION OF NOS VIEWS 195

subjectivity (theory-ladenness) and social and cultural influences on scientific knowledge

development. Most believe scientists are particularly objective, and that use of the scientific

method in developing scientific knowledge ensures objectivity. They do not appreciate the

roles that background knowledge and cultural influences play on scientists’ designs and inter-

pretations of data. For example, they do not recognize that scientists with differing content

knowledge levels or cultural backgrounds may have different interpretations of the data.

Improving Teachers’ Views of NOS in Science Methods Courses

For several decades, science teacher educators have been attempting to improve elementary

teachers’ NOS views in science methods course contexts. For example, Barufaldi, Bethel, & Lamb

(1977) conducted a study in which they explored the influence of their science methods courses on

elementary teachers’ views of the tentative nature of science. They found that those enrolled in the

treatment group classes who experienced inquiry activities held better understandings of the

tentative NOS than those in the control groups.

Meichtry (1995) used learning cycle lessons, interviews with elementary students,

experiments conducted by preservice teachers, reflections on those experiments, and inquiry

lessons to teach her students about NOS. She found that the preservice teachers held largely

incomplete understandings of NOS prior to her course, and developed better understandings by

participating in her course. She found that having students participate in long-range experiments

had the most impact on their understandings of NOS. She also found that asking students to reflect

on their learning on the context of NOS was important in encouraging change in their ideas.

Bianchini & Colburn (2000) explored the influence of inquiry-based instruction in an

elementary science methods course on preservice teachers’ views of NOS. They described

classroom interactions that illustrated the development of NOS knowledge during instruction.

They found that the course instructor (Colburn) played a pivotal role in focusing the students on

NOS ideas, and recommend that educators continue to guide and support teachers as they use

inquiry to help students understand nature of science.

Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick, & Lederman (2000) found that an explicit, reflective approach to

nature of science instruction enhanced preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science

for both undergraduate and graduate students. The methods course instructor (Akerson) used

classroom activities and outside readings as a context to explicitly draw students’ attention to

nature of science ideas. She also asked students to reflect on these ideas orally and in writing, again

using course activities and readings as contexts.

Although the studies just mentioned all reported success in helping preservice elementary

teachers improve their NOS views, none of them explored whether these new ideas are retained. If

they do not retain their new understandings it is not likely these ideas will be passed on to their own

students. After the preservice teachers leave the science methods courses with their improved

views, will they continue to hold those views? Will some retain those views and others revert? If so,

why? This study seeks to add to the knowledge base by exploring these issues.

Applying Perry’s Scheme to the Development of NOS

In examining research on preservice teachers’ development of NOS views, we consider that,

as with children’s learning, attention needed to focus beyond classroom interventions and

approaches to include an investigation of where preservice teachers were in their cognitive

development as they learned NOS views. One perspective that seemed to hold promise for

explaining why improved NOS views were or were not retained was by interpreting preservice

196 AKERSON, MORRISON, AND McDUFFIE

teachers’ NOS conceptions through William G. Perry’s scheme (1999). Perry’s work explored

adult cognitive development and related it to ways of learning. We use his scheme to interpret our

students’ (adult learners) responses to help us determine developmental reasons that some

students do not retain new ideas. Perry’s scheme lists nine positions of cognitive development for

adult learners (see Table 1 for a listing of these positions).

Perry made no presumptions about the length of time a person may remain in a position;

thus the positions are more fluid, unlike Piaget’s 1929 developmental stages (Woolfolk, 2004).

Although Perry’s original scheme contains nine positions, most researchers clump them together

to make it easier to understand and interpret. The most common clumping method produces four

stages: dualism; multiplicity; relativism; and commitment to relativism. The first three stages

describe epistemological and intellectual development. The last stage, which is actually Perry’s

positions 6 through 9, describes moral, ethical, and identity formation.

Table 1

Diagram of Perry’ scheme positions

Positions Common Beliefs

Basic Duality (1) Authority is believed—never contradict authorityBelief in fact/one right answer

Multiplicity Prelegitimate (2) Still seeking ‘‘truth’’Sees many views, but believes there is one right answerScience is proceduralPath to doubt is open

Multiplicity Subordinate (3) There are definite answers, but we can’t get themUncertainty unavoidable—even in physicsRoom for human uncertaintyAll answers are just as goodAuthority is still rightPerception¼ interpretation

Multiplicity Correlate/Relativism Authority passes judgment even though no right answerSubordinate (4) Authority wants students to think relativistically

Everyone has a right to an opinionAll or none perception stillBegins connecting beyond courses

Relativism Correlate, Competing or Knowledge is contextual and relativisticDiffuse (5) Still dualism ‘‘they want you to think relativistically,

but know the answer’’Acceptance of ambiguity/tentative answersSense of driftingFinding out what self believes

Commitment Foreseen (6) Coming to terms with one’s pastResolution of problems of relativismPolarities of experiencesRealization of need to commit to ideas regardless of ‘‘proof’’

Initial Commitment (7), Taking responsibility (7)Orientation of Commitment (8), No major restructuring from this point onDeveloping Commitments (9) How to make commitments (8)

Knowing self in commitments (9)Alternatives to Growth: Temporizing: Waiting to change

Temporizing, Retreat, Escape Retreat: Regress to earlier positionEscape: Lead mainly from temporizing—‘‘fate’’ is responsible,

not selfEscape to commitments—alienationRecovery¼ thinking again.


When in position 1, which is dualism, persons believe that authorities possess absolute truth,

that there is a definite right/wrong and good/bad dichotomy, and that the truth is known and we just

have to learn it. In the Multiplicity Prelegitimate position (2) students begin to note that the world

is not as cut and dry, right/wrong as they thought it was. They recognize, but oppose pluralism,

complexity, interpretation, and abstractness, and instead think of authorities as good and bad

holders of information. In position 3, Early Multiplicity, students still believe there is truth, but that

there is room for uncertainty. However, they also believe uncertainty is only temporary until the

truth is known and, if there are no right answers, there are also no wrong answers. They now seek to

know what the authorities want from students, and how they can ‘‘give it to them’’ so they can

successfully pass a class or test. In Late Multiplicity (position 4) students could take one of two

different paths, or proceed through both paths. In the first path (Multiplicity Correlate), the student

creates a double dualism. In other words, the authority is a right/wrong world and personalistic

diversity or multiplicity is a world that allows them personal freedom. Students commonly state

that if authorities do not know the ‘‘answer’’ then ‘‘everyone has a right to their own opinion.’’ In

the second path (Relativism Subordinate), the student recognizes diversity and ambiguity like the

multiplicity position, but also begins to incorporate evidence rules and context of the situation.

They recognize that some ideas are better than others. They are no longer concerned with what the

authority wants, but are concerned with how the authority wants them to think, even though they

are trying to think independently.

In position 5, Relativism (Contextual Relativism, Relational Knowing), the student adopts a

way of understanding that requires a totally new understanding of all knowledge being contextual

and relativistic. This position is much different from earlier ones that built upon a foundation of

knowledge as dualistic. Metacognition is developed in this position. Relativistic thinking is at first

conscious and then becomes a habit. Authority becomes open to debate, analysis, and evaluation.

Conflicting authorities are recognized, going through the same world as students, with the

exception of more experience. Once a student attains the position of Relativism, they do not return

to Dualism because they have developed a new habit of thinking. In Commitment to Relativism

(positions 6, 7, 8, and 9), students find Relativism disorienting. A student sees that developing

commitments will help establish orientation. They may feel unable to make a decision, establish a

commitment, or narrow the possibilities, but they feel a need to do so.

In Perry’s scheme there are also transition periods between positions 1 through 5. Alternatives

to growth are also postulated. The first alternative to growth is Temporizing, in which a student is

aware of a position ahead, but hesitant to continue. The student is delayed in a position for a period

of time. In Retreat, the student moves back to the safety of dualism where ambiguity does not exist.

This Retreat is often in response to the complications of pluralism. In Escape, the student avoids

moving beyond the position of relativism to making commitments and personal choices and

having responsibility for them. The student remains in an early position because it seems easier

than moving positions.

Method

We focused on the meanings the preservice teachers ascribed to the emphasized NOS aspects

(tentative, creative, subjective, empirical, sociocultural, distinction between theory and law

and distinction between observation and inference), as well as their retention of these meanings.

We explored cognitive developmental reasons for retaining improved ideas, or reverting to

former views. We investigated one cohort of preservice elementary teachers enrolled in an

elementary science methods course. Data collection of teaching approaches for NOS was

continuous and spanned an entire semester. We compared preservice teacher conceptions of


NOS at the beginning and end of each semester and again 5 months after the students had been out

of the methods course.

Participants

Participants included 19 students (16 females and 3 males) who were enrolled in an

elementary education program offered at a midsized, western state university. This study reports

on 17 of those students because we had a complete set of data for these students (14 females,

3 males). Their ages ranged between 25 and 49 years, with a median of 32 years, and they were

working toward a master’s in teaching (MIT) degree in elementary education. All students were in

the first year of their programs. Most students (85%) had completed 12–15 science credit-hours.

Only two of the graduate participants held a science bachelor’s degree and had completed more

than 100 credit-hours in science. No students had completed formal coursework in history or

philosophy of science.

An Elementary Science Methods Course: Context of the Study

The first author taught the elementary science methods course (3 credit hours) in which the

participants were enrolled. The second and third authors aided in interviewing students and

analyzing data to ensure valid interpretation of the results. Classes were held weekly in 3-hour

blocks throughout the semester. The course aimed to help preservice teachers develop: (a) a

theoretical framework for teaching science at the elementary level; (b) a repertoire of methods

for teaching science; (c) favorable attitudes toward science and science teaching; (d) deeper

understanding of some science content area; and (e) an understanding of nature of science

elements as outlined in the reforms just discussed. Specifically, we were looking for the preservice

teachers to be able to explicate that scientific knowledge is robust, yet tentative (subject to

change with new evidence or reinterpretation of old evidence), and recognize that scientific

knowledge is created through multiple methods of inquiry, that those methods of inquiry require

empirical evidence, that scientists use creativity in developing knowledge, that scientific

knowledge is subjective in the sense that evidence is interpreted and conclusions drawn based on

prior knowledge, understandings, and expectations of the scientists undertaking the investigation,

and that this scientific knowledge is developed within the social and cultural context of the

scientists conducting the investigation, which may also influence not only interpretations of

evidence but even the kinds of questions raised for investigation. Two other ideas we wanted

the preservice teachers to be able to describe were: (a) the definition of theory as being an

evidence-based explanation for laws, which are evidence-based descriptions of phenomena; and

(b) that inferences are explanations for observations.

We assigned preservice teachers weekly readings that were mostly pedagogical in nature, but

also included selections related to NOS conceptual development (see Fig. 1) (e.g., McComas,

1996). Preservice teachers were engaged in weekly hands-on in-class activities. These activities

were content-based explorations designed to help preservice teachers experience a variety of

teaching methods and reinforce their understandings of key science concepts, and through which

the instructor made explicit reference to NOS aspects as illustrated by the activities. The course

assignments included an in-depth study of a science content area emphasized in Benchmarks

for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) and chosen by the preservice teachers. Each participant

then interviewed an elementary student to elicit his or her ideas about the target science

content area. Each preservice teacher submitted a paper illustrating the understandings he or

she acquired as a result of studying the content area, contrasting those understandings with


ideas described by the elementary student interviewed. Next, the preservice teacher designed a set

of three lesson plans specifically designed to address the interviewee’s misconceptions. Finally,

the preservice teachers designed performance assessment tasks. They administered this task to

elementary students to allow them to elaborate on their new understandings as a result of the

lessons. In addition, preservice teachers wrote weekly reflection papers on assigned readings and

tasks.

Explicit-Reflective Nature of Science Instruction

At the beginning of the semester preservice teachers participated in an intensive 6 hours of

instructional activities designed to explicitly address the seven target aspects of NOS that are

emphasized in the reforms (Lederman & Abd-El-Khalick, 1998; NSTA, 2000). Two of the

activities addressed the function of, and relationship between, scientific theories and laws.

Two other activities (‘‘Tricky tracks’’ and ‘‘The hole picture’’) addressed differences between

observation and inference, and the empirical, creative, imaginative, and tentative nature of

scientific knowledge. Four other activities (‘‘The aging president,’’ ‘‘That’s part of life!’’ ‘‘Young?

Old?’’ and ‘‘Rabbit? Duck?’’) targeted the theory-ladenness and the social and cultural embed-

dedness of science. Finally, two black-box activities (‘‘The tube’’ and ‘‘The cubes’’) were used

to reinforce participants’ understandings of the above NOS aspects. The activities were

purposefully selected to be generic in nature (not content-specific), given the participants’

limited science content backgrounds. In-depth descriptions of these activities were done by

Lederman & Abd-El-Khalick (1998). One content-embedded activity, Rutherford’s Enlarged

(Abd-El-Khalick, 2002), was used to illustrate how to emphasize NOS elements within

science content. Each activity was followed by a whole-class discussion that aimed to explicitly

highlight the target aspects of NOS and involve students in active discourse concerning the

ideas presented.

Next, students participated in oral and written activities that encouraged preservice teachers

to reflect on NOS elements, establishing NOS as a theme throughout the rest of the semester in a

manner similar to that described by Akerson et al. (2000). These reflections were composed of

class discussions following content activities and course readings, as well as written reflections of

course readings. The instructor kept a detailed log of all these reflective opportunities. The

intention for the reflections was to further focus preservice teachers on the target NOS elements.

In addition, during classroom activities, the course instructor explicitly asked preservice teachers

Figure 1. Alphabetical listing of nature of science readings completed by the students as part of the science

methods course.


to note which elements of NOS were illustrated by those activities. For example, after an activity

during which preservice teachers were required to light a bulb using a battery and one wire, they

were asked to discuss the elements of NOS that could be explicitly illustrated by the activity.

Following is an excerpt from the discussion recorded in the lead researcher’s log to illustrate the

type of explicit reflection we mean:

Instructor: What did you learn about the way scientists go about their work from lighting

the bulb?

Student 1: Well, there is no one method for figuring out this problem!

Student 2: Right—we all approached lighting the bulb in different ways, but eventually we

were all able to do it.

Student 3: Yeah, I don’t know of anyone who followed the scientific method on this one!

Instructor: Okay—did you have a prediction for what would happen? Did you finally come

to a determination for what would work?

Student 1: Well, yes, but we didn’t really do it in a step-by-step way, like the scientific

method would have us do.

Instructor: What else might this activity illustrate about how scientists do their work?

Student 2: Well, if you think about that term ‘‘tentativeness.’’ I thought by solving my

problem I was done, yet when I heard of others’ solutions I could see that my

conclusion needs to be expanded to include other ways of lighting the bulb.

That illustrates that my first conclusion was tentative because I modified it with

new information.

Following the semester during which preservice teachers were enrolled in the science

methods course, they continued their teacher preparation program, taking Elementary

Mathematics Methods, along with other education courses, in the following semester. Although

the Elementary Mathematics Methods course emphasized problem-based learning through

investigations, there was no further explicit instruction of NOS elements beyond the science

methods course. After this semester (5 months following the explicit reflective methods course)

students were again tracked for their NOS understandings.

Data Collection

We used an open-ended questionnaire, Views of Nature of Science version B (VNOS-B)

(Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002), in conjunction with semistructured

interviews to assess participants’ views of the target aspects of NOS. All participants responded to

the questionnaire prior to and at the conclusion of the course, as well as 5 months following their

participation in the science methods course. All participants who had been officially admitted to

the program and were willing to participate in the study were selected for interview. Students were

interviewed at the outset of the study and at the conclusion of the semester during which they

were taking science methods, and at the end of the school year (5 months after the science

methods course). Students who were interviewed were provided with a copy of their VNOS-B

questionnaire responses and the interviewers asked probing questions and for an elaboration of

responses. Use of the interviews allowed the researchers to establish the validity of the question-

naire by insuring that the researchers’ interpretations corresponded to those of participants. The

interviews also aimed to generate in-depth profiles of participants’ NOS views. All interviews

lasted about 45 minutes and were audio-taped and transcribed for analysis. Finally, a researcher

log in which the lead researcher recorded class NOS activities and interactions served as an

additional data source.


Data Analysis

We analyzed pre-instruction interview transcripts and corresponding VNOS-B question-

naires separately to generate profiles of the preservice teachers’ views of NOS aspects, then

compared both sources to insure the validity of the questionnaire. This analysis indicated that our

interpretations of participants’ NOS views as described in the questionnaire were congruent to

those expressed by the preservice teachers during individual interviews. This congruency allowed

us to proceed with data analysis.

We analyzed all the VNOS-B questionnaires to generate pre-instruction, post-instruction,

and post-post-instruction (5 months later) profiles of each individual participants’ views. In this

analysis, each participant was treated as a separate case. Data from each questionnaire were used to

generate a summary of the participant’s views of NOS related to the seven target aspects. This

process was repeated for all the questionnaires. We categorized student responses and conceptions

as ‘‘adequate’’ if their responses indicated they had a view in line with the NSTA nature of science

position statement and met our course goals as indicate previously. For example, if a student

responded that ‘‘scientific theories change because there might be new evidence collected,’’

the response was coded as ‘‘adequate view of tentative nature of scientific theories.’’ If the student

responded that ‘‘theories change because of new evidence or reinterpretation of old evidence,’’

the response would be coded ‘‘informed view of tentative nature of scientific theories.’’ If the

student responded that ‘‘theories will never change,’’ then the response was coded ‘‘inadequate

view of tentative nature of scientific theories.’’

After this initial round of analysis, we searched the generated summaries for patterns or

categories, such as the numbers of students with adequate or informed understandings of target

aspects or, if students had erroneous views, what the patterns of error were. The generated

categories were checked against confirmatory or otherwise contradictory evidence in the data and

were modified accordingly. We conducted several rounds of category generation, confirmation,

and modification to satisfactorily reduce and organize the data. Finally, we compared pre-, post-,

and post-post profiles to assess changes in participants’ views. This analysis occurred three times,

to compare change in views over the entire school year. The researcher log was used to note

classroom interactions that influenced NOS conceptions, ensuring that students engaged in

explicit-reflective activities to allow them to better understand the NOS aspects.

To assess students’ positions according to Perry’s scheme, we used their responses to the

second administration of the questionnaire and interviews from that session (following instruction

in the science methods course). We used this set of data because the position at which they were at

this time influenced whether they retained their new views of NOS by the end of the year. We

reviewed the interview transcripts and questionnaires, seeking responses and interactions that

would indicate their position. We found that it took at least two readings of the interview

transcripts and questionnaires to categorize students at different positions. When there were

questions regarding the categorization we consulted the data again and resolved these

discrepancies by discussion of the issues. We categorized students as position 1 if they held a

strong belief in fact, authority, and one right answer (e.g., ‘‘Scientists know the answer. We can’t

dispute it. It won’t change.’’). We categorized students as position 2 if their responses indicated

they realized there were many views, but there was still one ‘‘truth’’ (e.g., ‘‘Science goes in one

process so they get to the answer. Others may have different ideas, but the scientists know the

answer from their methods.’’). Position 3 was assigned when students believed there was a

‘‘correct’’ answer, but that there was no way we would be able to know that answer. Their

responses also indicated that all answers were equally valid (e.g., ‘‘Sure there is a truth out there—

we will never understand it.’’ ‘‘Everyone thinks something different—we all have our own good


ideas.’’). Students were designated at position 4 when their responses indicated that they believed

that everyone had a right to their own opinions that were not necessarily backed up by evidence

(e.g., ‘‘There are lots of ways to look at things—we all have a right to our opinion for what is the

right answer.’’). Position 5 was used to categorize students who recognized that there may be many

competing theories or ideas, but that each required evidence (e.g., ‘‘People might disagree on

explanations, but they need to have evidence for their own ideas. The one with the best evidence is

probably right, but if more evidence is gotten even that person’s idea might change.’’). Position 6

was designated for students who noted that even opinions required evidence, and that knowledge

is contextual (e.g., ‘‘When you say ‘‘knowledge’’ that shows you are thinking about observed

relationships. Your opinion about them is how you interpret the evidence. Your interpretation is

based on evidence and your own background knowledge.’’).

After categorizing students into different Perry positions we sought for which positions

students’ ideas reverted to their original understandings, and for which positions students retained

their new views of NOS by comparing responses to post-interviews and questionnaires to post-

post-interviews and questionnaires. This step enabled us to interpret relationships between

developmental positions and retention of new NOS views.

Results

We found that students made substantial improvements in their understandings of the target

aspects of NOS as a result of their participation in an explicit reflective science methods course.

At the second administration of the questionnaire most students exhibited a marked improvement

in their understandings. However, results of the interview and questionnaire data at the conclusion

of the academic year (5 months after their participation in the science methods course) indicate

that the students did not always retain their new conceptions of most NOS aspects, and they

sometimes reverted to original understandings. This retention of ideas varied by student, and by

target aspect. When linked to their Perry positions, we found that students at positions 5 or 6 tended

to retain most of their new understandings, whereas students at the lower positions did not.

We found one student at Perry position 1, no student at position 2, three students at position 3,

five students at position 4, six students at position 5, and one student at position 6 (no student was

beyond position 6). Of the students found at these positions, three retained all of their improved

NOS views (two at position 5 and one at position 6). Three position 5 students reverted to original

ideas on one NOS aspect (two for theories and laws, and one for empirical NOS). Only two

students reverted to original views for all of the NOS aspects—the student who was at position 1,

and one of the position 3 students. The other two position 3 students retained only two of their

improved views (both retained improved views of imagination and creativity, whereas one

retained an improved view of the tentative nature of science and the other of the distinction

between observation and inference). Position 4 students retained improved views of from four to

five NOS aspects (empirical, subjectivity and sociocultural, imagination and creativity,

observation and inference, and tentative nature of science). Qualitative differences among their

understandings over the course of the study are described in later in this study. Table 2 shows

changes in NOS views over the course of the study as linked to the Perry position.

In what follows we describe the views that preservice teachers held of target elements prior to

instruction, after instruction, and 5 months after instruction. We compare these responses to

Perry’s levels. As noted in Table 2, prior to instruction, some students held adequate views of

some conceptions (e.g., creative nature of science), but in general most held uninformed views of

the target aspects, and none held informed views. Representative quotes are used to illustrate

students’ views of the target elements. The number is used to indicate which particular student


responded. Students numbered S1–S7 are at Perry position 5 or 6 (S1–S6 are at position 5, S7 is at

position 6). Student 8 is at Perry position 1 (S81). Students numbered S9–S11 are at position 3, and

students S12–S17 are at position 4. We use a subscript with the identifier to indicate the Perry

position. ‘‘Pre’’ indicates student responses prior to instruction, ‘‘post’’ indicates at the conclusion

of the semester, and ‘‘post 5 months’’ indicates responses from students after being away from

instruction for 5 months For instance, code ‘‘S124 pre’’ indicates that student 12, at Perry position 4,

responded with a particular quote prior to instruction.

Observation Versus Inference

Fifty percent of the students in each position grouping (see Table 2) held adequate views of the

distinction between observation and inference prior to instruction. However, when preservice

teachers were asked to describe how scientists determined the structure of the atom, no student

talked about finding evidence to support the model of the atom, just that scientists use ‘‘facts.’’ A

Perry position 3 student indicated uncertainty with her response:

Not everyone will believe in atoms because they can’t see them so how do you prove it

really. . . (S113 pre)

Her response also indicates her belief that scientists strive to ‘‘prove’’ their ideas, another

indication of her position (position 3).

The preservice teachers’ understandings of observation versus inference improved markedly

over the course of the semester. At the conclusion of the semester all position 1–4 students had

adequate understandings of observation versus inference. In addition, four of the five position 5–

6 students held informed views of the distinction. For instance, S11, from above, stated the

following after instruction, which also illustrated her understanding of subjectivity:

The NOS addresses the issue of subjectivity, and therefore it is easy to see why there would

be differing interpretations about atomic structure. No one has seen an atom, but are

making observations of evidence, and then making an inference of what is there. (S113 post)

Table 2

Changes in NOS views over the study by Perry position

Positions 1–4(10 students) Post 5 Months

Positions 5–6(7 students) Post 5 Months

NOS Aspect Pre Post R V Pre Post R V

Tentative � þ to þþ 0 (10) þ þþ (6) (1)Creative � to þ þþ 0 (10) � to þ þþ (7) 0Subjective � to þ þ to þþ (2) (8) � to þ þþ (6) (1)Empirical � � to þ (1) (9) � to þ þ/þþ (6) (1)Sociocultural � to þ þ to þþ (2) (8) � to þ þ/þþ (6) (1)Theory/law � þ to þþ (10) 0 � þ/þþ (6) (1)Observation/

Inference� to þ þ (3) (7) � to þ þ/þþ (7) 0

Key: �, inadequate view; þ, adequate view; þþ, informed view; R, retention of ideas; V, reversion to original idea.

Numbers in parentheses indicate quantity of students who reverted or retained ideas.


A position 5 student (S1) indicated his improved view of this aspect by stating:

Scientists can only use indirect evidence to verify the existence of atoms. They cannot see

atoms even through a microscope. They use experiments, such as the gold foil experiment,

to make observations of interactions, and then make inferences based on their own

creativity to design models that represent what they cannot see. (S15 post)

However, 5 months after taking the course, seven of the position 1–4 students’ views reverted

to earlier inadequate views. These students tended to revert to views indicating that indirect

evidence was not sufficient in determining the atom. One student reverted to her idea that you had

to see the atom to know it:

Well, scientists only know about them because they saw them through special electron

microscopes (S154 post 5 months)

S11 also reverted to her earlier understanding, using terms very much like her original

response:

Well, we can’t know the structure of the atoms. You can’t see them, therefore you can’t

prove it. Scientists make their best guesses. (S113 post 5 months)

S11 was once again focusing on scientific ‘‘proof’’ based on seeing as being required, to know

something. There is no evidence that her view of observation and inference, gained by the end of

the semester, was retained 5 months later.

Students at positions 5–6 retained their new views of the distinction between observation and

inference. These students also tended to answer in relation to course activities or discussions,

indicating they had engaged in thinking about the issues in some depth. For example, the following

quote indicates that this student, who retained an adequate view of observation versus inference,

connected her views to Rutherford’s Enlarged course activity:

No one knows for sure what atoms look like. Scientists construct a model to best simulate

naturally occurring phenomena. As in our activity, scientists compared what they knew

about the behavior of certain materials under certain circumstances and what they

observed under the same circumstances using atoms. (S44 post 5 months)

The necessity of observation for proof is consistent with Perry’s lower developmental

positions. Correspondingly, our findings indicate that students needed to be at Perry’s higher

positions (position 5 or higher) to retain understandings of the role of inference in science.

Functions of and Relationship Between Scientific Theories and Laws

Prior to instruction none of the students adequately recognized the relationship between

theory and law. Most students believed that scientific theories were a lesser type of knowledge than

law, with law being ‘‘proven,’’ and something that theories strive to become:

Theories can change, but laws get proven over and over and never change (S15 pre).

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that is being tested and evaluated to hopefully become a

law. (S124 pre)

Theories are proposed assumptions that scientists make. Laws are facts. (S114 pre)


Students in both position groupings (see Table 2) substantially improved their understand-

ings of the relationship between theories and laws, although there were still misconceptions

held at the conclusion of the semester. Students began to recognize that theories were not simply

lesser forms of laws, but were actually explanations for laws, as indicated by the following

responses:

A scientific theory can explain scientific law, which states, identifies, or describes

relationships among observable phenomena. (S45 post)

A law describes relationships that you can observe. A theory is an inferred explanation for

the law. (S124 post)

All students in positions 1–4 reverted to their earlier understandings 5 months after

instruction. These students reverted to the idea that laws were ‘‘fact’’ and theories were

conjecture:

Scientists believe theories are true, so they call them theories. But scientists know that laws

are true, so they are laws, they are facts. (S124 post 5 months)

This student’s response indicated her desire for a ‘‘right’’ answer to be obtained by scientists.

Although six of the students at positions 5–6 retained improved views of the relationship

between theory and law, one position 5 student reverted to an earlier view. In what follows is a

quote from this student indicating her misunderstanding of theory and law, but illustrating her

emphasis on testing and observations in developing scientific knowledge:

A theory can never be a rigid law, because it is by definition just an educated conjecture.

Newton’s laws are testable and observable but Einstein couldn’t travel in space to prove his

theories on how light travels. (S45 post 5 months)

However, the other six students at positions 5–6 retained adequate understandings. These

new understandings were often couched in the same terms used in class, again indicating the

course was influential in contributing to the change in understanding. It is also possible that they

could not think of examples beyond the course, but they retained the new views in the context of

the course:

Theory is an inferred explanation for an observable phenomenon. A law describes a

relationship among observable phenomena. (S35 post 5 months)

It seems that students’ responses at the higher Perry positions exhibited their readiness to

make meaning for how within scientific knowledge we have different categories for knowing,

going beyond known and unknown.

Creative and Imaginative NOS

Prior to instruction only 19% of the students held adequate views of the creative and

imaginative aspect of NOS. The following statement illustrates the adequate view held by these

students:

They use creativity and imagination during and after data collection because they need to

analyze results and be open to change. (S15 pre)


However, many more held inadequate views, such as this one preservice teacher who was

changing careers from being a scientist:

I never used creativity. If you use creativity then you are biasing your results. (S164 pre)

Preservice teachers’ views for all positions improved substantially by the end of the semester

regarding the creative and imaginative NOS (see Table 2). Students began to recognize the role of

creativity and imagination in the development of scientific knowledge. For instance:

Yes! There’s a lot of creativity to interpret the outcome of an investigation and draw

conclusions from it. And then there’s ‘‘what to do next?’’ (S45 post)

Each scientist brings with them their personal experience and expertise when conducting,

planning, and analyzing their experiments (S93 post)

However, although none of the position 5–6 student views reverted, all of the position 1–

4 students’ views reverted to their prior views at the final assessment of their understandings. We

can see from student S9’s response that he has totally changed his view back to that which indicates

that scientists do not use creativity at all. It is also clear to see that he is again focused on scientists

obtaining a single ‘‘right’’ answer through their work, a view indicative of his level 3 position:

No, scientists do not use their creativity and imagination during and after data collection.

They are simply collecting what is seen, leaving out their own bias. If they included their

own thoughts they would not get the right answer. (S93 post 5 months)

All of the position 5–6 students retained their improved views of the creative and imaginative

NOS. The notion of creativity in science was difficult for students to assimilate when they

remained in a relatively dualistic position. Yet, students who evidenced higher Perry positions did

not struggle with this view.

Subjective, and Social and Cultural NOS

Thirteen percent of the students had adequate understandings of the subjective and

social and cultural NOS prior to instruction. For instance, one position 5 student recognized

the role that experience, and social and cultural context play in scientists’ development of

knowledge:

Each scientist interprets observations through their own filter of experience and inference,

social and cultural context, and unique interpretation. (S65 pre)

However, more often misconceptions regarding the social and cultural context and

subjectivity in science were apparent. Students in all positions commonly held the belief that it

is accepted practice for scientists to consciously manipulate data to get the answer they are looking

for:

They are all trying to prove what they think to be the right answer. (S103 pre)

Scientists interpret the data in ways that support their ideas. (S55 pre)

Another common idea was that, if all the scientists had more data, a more complete data set,

then they would all agree to the same interpretation:


Their interpretations differ from others because there is not enough information available

for a definite answer. Once they can get enough data they will all know the real idea.

(S93 pre).

The students’viewpoints of the subjective and social and cultural NOS also improved over the

course of the semester they were in the methods course. They recognized the roles that scientists’

prior knowledge play, as well as scientists’ research backgrounds and cultural backgrounds:

Science is very subjective because whether we like it or not we use our prior knowledge, as

well as personal morals to make conclusions and inferences. (S65 post)

An adequate understanding of the social and cultural nature of science, coupled with the

subjective aspect, was retained by three of the position 1–4 students and six of the position 5–

6 students, who developed better understandings by the conclusion of the semester. More students

retained improved understandings of this NOS aspect than any other aspect explored in this study.

They responded in terms of different interpretations of evidence, the role of subjectivity in science,

and social and cultural context, while retaining the focus on prior knowledge and evidence:

Interpretation causes differences in scientific conclusions! Different scientists have done

different research, had different experiences, and their minds work in different ways. When

there is evidence to be had, multiple interpretations are possible. (S17post 5 months)

The social and cultural context of the scientist, as well as their subjectivity in terms of their

background knowledge, and opinions and biases influences the interpretations they make

of data collection. This is part of the creative aspect of science—we are creating ideas

based on evidence as well as our interpretation of that evidence through our own lens.

(S74 post 5 months)

However, seven position 1–4 students did revert in their understandings of this aspect, such as

the position 1 student who stated:

Scientists have to interpret data correctly—if they are too creative they will not get the

right answer (S81 post 5 months).

This statement also illustrates the students’ continued emphasis on the dualism between one

right answer and being wrong.

When considering Perry’s scheme in the context of NOS understandings, one need only be at

position 3 to relate to the notions of subjectivity and social and cultural context because they may

interpret these aspects of NOS as being ‘‘everyone’s ideas are equally valid’’ and thus more readily

retain those understandings.

Discussion

First, it is apparent that the explicit reflective approach (Akerson et al., 2000) was effective for

preservice elementary teachers at all identified Perry positions in initially improving their NOS

conceptions. However, as evidenced by the final post-questionnaire and interview responses, these

new understandings were not retained by all students, even one semester following the science

methods course.

Students who were categorized at Perry positions below 5 reverted to original ideas more

often than those at positions 5 and 6. It is apparent that aspects of NOS are contradictory to beliefs


held by persons at positions 1–4. For example, to develop and articulate an informed view of the

tentative nature of science one would need to be able to accept ambiguity and tentative answers,

which is associated with position 5. For positions below 5 there are notions of a dichotomy

between right and wrong, and the determination of truth. Thus, although various students at all

levels were able to state that ‘‘science can change with new evidence’’ by the post-assessment,

only those at levels 5 and 6 retained this new view. Position 5 students are at a metacognitive level

that allows them to accept ambiguity and tentative answers. It may be necessary for students to

attain metacognitive positions such as 5 or 6, that would allow them to reflect on the new

understandings in a way that would solidify them in their minds. For instance, a position 5 student

stated in her post-interview that she was ‘‘worried because I will never have the opportunity to talk

about these ideas again. How will I be able to remember them?’’ Thus, she foreshadowed the

instability of her new ideas, and was concerned that she would not solidify these ideas formally.

However, this student retained her more accurate new ideas. She was metacognitively aware of her

views, and of the importance of her views. Therefore, there is evidence that metacognitive

awareness of the views may make these new views more resistant to relapse. Becoming aware of

one’s thinking, and the importance of retaining new views, may contribute to commitment to

improved views. Metacognition is the self-conscious ability to reflect on, control, and understand

one’s own learning and cognition (Schraw & Dennison, 1994). Perhaps students who have attained

at least position 5 of relativism in which they are metacognitively aware of their own thinking will

have a stronger chance of retaining their improved views. White & Gunstone (1989) found that

permanent belief change requires deep reflection by the learner. The learner must engage in

thinking about what is newly learned, applying it, and reflecting on the outcomes of using the new

knowledge. Perhaps, unless learners are developmentally ready to commit to a new idea (e.g., at

position 5 or higher) they will be unable able to retain these new ideas.

It is apparent that, although many of the position 1–4 students’ ideas reverted to earlier views

by the end of the study, they did initially improve their ideas. The questionnaires and interviews

may have simply reflected that many preservice teachers could ‘‘talk the talk’’ of informed NOS

views at the end of the semester, having recently been exposed to the information, but deeper

internalizing of the concepts—truly constructing these notions on their own, and being able to

provide examples of their own, had not yet occurred. Even those at Perry position 4 would be

concerned with ‘‘right answers’’ and want to be ready to give the authority (in this case the course

instructor) that answer. Indeed, position 4 is associated with students ‘‘figuring out what the

authority wants them to think’’ and then being able to provide that answer to the authority. Perry

(1999) would state they were in the scheme of basic dualism or Multiplicity Prelegitimate, looking

to the instructor as the authority telling them how to think. There is no commitment to the idea

itself associated with this or other earlier positions, just a search for the ‘‘right answer.’’ There is no

reason to retain the idea beyond what is necessary to obtain a grade or pass a course. Thus, by the

time the students were assessed at the post-post-session they had reverted to their earlier

understandings because they had not committed to the new views.

Why then, were some improved views of some NOS aspects retained by some students of

levels 3 and 4? Again, some level 3 and 4 students retained views of subjective/sociocultural (3),

distinction between observation and inference (3), and empirical (1) NOS. If we think in terms of

Perry’s positions 3 and 4 we can see that, at level 3, people begin to hold the belief that there is

room for uncertainty and, although there are definite answers, we cannot get to them. All answers

are equally as good. Thus, if we think about sociocultural/subjective NOS in which scientists

interpret evidence through their own background knowledge, perspectives, and cultures, we can

see that students at positions 3 and 4 may think of this definition as being in line with their views

that ‘‘anything goes’’ and that ‘‘all answers are reasonable,’’ because we all view the world


differently—that all opinions are equally valid. This idea can also be applied to the retained view

of the distinction between observation and inference as well. Inferences are explanations made of

observations—there can be numerous reasonable inferences made from a set of observations.

Students at positions 3 and 4 may see these observations as ‘‘truths’’ and the inferences as

‘‘everybody’s legitimate opinions of the truths.’’ Thus, the distinction between observation and

inference could be logically interpreted within these positions, enabling students to retain what

seemed to be an improved view. For the student for whom the view of the empirical NOS was

retained, perhaps he/she believed that empirical evidence was equated with ‘‘truth.’’

Why would some students at position 5 revert to earlier understandings? Although students at

position 5 retained most of their new views, several reverted to earlier views of one or two NOS

aspects. Students at position 5 are capable of accepting ambiguity or tentative answers, but also

experience a sense of drifting, and a sorting out what they actually believe and to what they will

commit in their beliefs. Thus, they may still be sorting out their new views, and may be engaged in

some of the alternatives to growth that are part of Perry’s scheme (Temporizing, Escape, or

Retreat). Possibly, they still recall their new views, but are choosing to ascribe to the earlier views

while they are sorting out their commitments to ideas. However, there could be an alternative

explanation—that they simply do not recall or hold the new view because they have not had

enough exposure to these new ideas of nature of science.

Recommendations

If there is a relationship between the cognitive levels of preservice elementary teachers and

the NOS ideas that they can attain and retain, how can we help elementary teachers of positions 1–

4 gain and retain appropriate NOS views? Is it possible or necessary to help preservice teachers

attain at least a position 5 cognitive level in order to develop informed NOS views? One of the

distinctions between students at levels 1–4 and those at 5 and beyond is the existence of

metacognitive awareness of their ideas and understandings. Perhaps using metacognitive teaching

strategies coupled with explicit reflective NOS instruction to develop students’ understandings of

NOS elements would prove fruitful. Metacognitive strategies have previously been shown to help

students of all ages develop conceptual understandings of various disciplinary content (Babkie &

Provost, 2002). These strategies help students reflect on what they are learning in ways that allow

them to deeply conceptualize the target content. Metacognitive strategies have also been found to

help college students retain new content (Schraw, 1994). Kincannon, Gleber, & Kim (1999)

reported that university students who were taught and used metacognitive strategies while

studying new content developed both stronger metacognitive awareness and understandings of the

target content. Studies in literacy education showed that the use of metacognitive strategies

improves understanding of both content and strategies for learning (e.g., Oldfather, 2002; Thomas

& Barksdale-Ladd, 2000). Oldfather (2002) also found that the use of these strategies can help

overcome the lack of motivation that some students might have regarding learning a content area.

Thus, metacognitive strategies can help overcome motivational problems, further understanding

and retention of new content, and promote ‘‘learning how to learn.’’ Notes made by the lead

researcher in the researcher log for the current study indicate that further opportunities need to be

made for students to think about and reflect on NOS. Research in the use of metacognitive

strategies for development and retention of appropriate NOS understandings seems promising

because it may help students of positions lower than 5 either attain a higher position or overcome

constraints of their current position.

Another avenue that may help preservice elementary teachers improve the retention of

newly formed ideas is to require them to contextualize these ideas in course or instructional


activities. The position 5 and 6 students in this study who retained their views often

provided examples of activities or discussions in the class that illustrated their new views—

there was evidence that they were thinking about their new views in the context of the

science methods course. There was no evidence that students at lower positions contextualized

their views. Thus, if all students were encouraged or required to think about their new views

in a context that was more meaningful to them, then they may be able to see the need to change their

views and to reach a Perry position that would allow them to commit to their ideas. It has been

found that in-service teachers require a contextualized model of NOS aspects being explicitly

taught in a content area to their own students to change their teaching to emphasize NOS in

classroom practice (Akerson & Abd-El-Khalick, 2003; Akerson & Hanuscin, 2003). If in-service

teachers require such contexts, it is certain that preservice teachers would need at least as much

context to solidify their views and teaching approaches. Perhaps contextualizing these ideas in a

way in which preservice teachers could at least view video-taped explicit reflective NOS

instruction in elementary classrooms would help improve their awareness of the importance of

their retention of these ideas for their future teaching settings.

Implications

Of course, the question that remains is: If it is difficult developmentally for adult learners to

gain and retain appropriate NOS views, how can we expect K-6 learners to attain the levels of

understanding ventured by the reforms (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996; NSTA, 2000)? Is it reasonable

to expect that K-6 students can develop these NOS understandings? Or could they develop

appropriate NOS understandings if these ideas were emphasized in their science classes

throughout their school careers? Are NOS understandings necessarily tied to cognitive develop-

ment levels? Certainly, there is a need to explore NOS understandings of elementary students and

relate these understandings to cognitive development of students, as well as for adult learners.

Future research should focus on these questions.

Recommendations for improving preservice teachers’ conceptions of NOS continue to

include sensitizing them to target aspects of NOS and emphasizing these aspects during a science

methods course using an explicit, reflective approach. We retain an optimistic view that, even if

students in our course were at a cognitive position that did not allow them to internalize the new

views, they at least have been exposed to appropriate NOS ideas. When they are introduced to

these notions again they will have some prior experience with appropriate views and, hopefully,

will make appropriate cognitive connections. We recommend that, to help preservice teachers

attain a cognitive position that allows them to commit to ideas and thus retain improved NOS

views, science methods instructors should use metacognitive strategies within the explicit

reflective approach. These strategies could include activities such as mind-mapping personal

conceptions of NOS over time, coteaching NOS ideas to peers, and responding to elementary

classroom scenarios to which they need to apply their improved understandings of NOS.

We recommend that preservice teachers be required to make NOS an explicit part of their

own instruction through lesson objectives, activities, and assessment of elementary student

understandings in order to enable the preservice teachers to both contextualize their own

understandings and translate them to classroom practice. Preservice teachers also should be

required to teach target aspects of NOS in the context of an elementary classroom to: (a) provide an

experience to allow preservice teachers on which to reflect about teaching NOS to children; and

(b) solidify their own understandings of the target NOS aspects in the context in which they will

be applying these notions.


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. (2002). Rutherford’s enlarged: A content-embedded activity to teach

about nature of science. Physics Education, 37, 64–68.

Abd-El-Khalick, F.S. & Akerson, V.L. (2004). Learning about nature of science as conceptual

change: Factors that mediate the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature

of science. Science Education, 88, 785–810.

Abell, S.K. & Smith, D.C. (1994). What is science? Preservice elementary teachers’

conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 475–487.

Akerson, V.L., Abd-El-Khalick, F.S., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Influence of a reflective

activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295–317.

Akerson, V.L. & Abd-El-Khalick, F.S. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: Ayear

long case study of a fourth grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 1025–1049.

Akerson, V.L. & Hanuscin, D. (2003). Primary teachers’ abilities to teach via scientific

inquiry while making NOS elements explicit. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science

literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.

Babkie, A.M. & Provost, M.C. (2002). Select, write, and use metacognitive strategies in the

classroom. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37, 173–177.

Barufaldi, J.P., Bethel, L.J., & Lamb, W.G. (1977). The effect of a science methods course on

the philosophical view of science among elementary education majors. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 14, 289–294.

Bianchini, J.A. & 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, 177–209.

DeBoer, G.E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New

York: Teachers College.

Kincannon, J., Gleber, C., & Kim, J. (1999). The effects of metacognitive training on

performance and use of metacognitive skills in self-directed learning situations. Proceedings of

Selected Research Papers of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science: A

review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.

Lederman, N.G. & Abd-El-Khalick, F.S. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that

promote understandings of nature of science. The nature of science in science education:

Rationales and strategies. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F.S., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R.S. (2002). Views of nature

of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of

nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521.

McComas, W.F. (1996). Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know about

the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 96, 10–16.

Meichtry, Y. (1995). Elementary science methods strategies to measure and develop student

views about the nature of science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the

Education of Teachers in Science, Charleston, WV.


National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:

National Academic Press.

National Science Teachers Association (2000). NSTA position statement: The nature of

science. Document retrieved: 3/18/03. http:/ /www.nsta.org/159&psid¼22

Oldfather, P. (2002). Students’ experiences when not initially motivated for literacy learning.

Reading and Writing Quarterly, 18, 231–256.

Perry, W.G. (1999). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college years: A

scheme. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Piaget, J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Co.

Schraw, G. (1994). The effect of metacognitive knowledge on local and global monitoring.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 143–154.

Schraw, G. & Dennison, R.S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.

Shapiro, B.L. (1996). A case study of change in elementary student teacher thinking during an

independent investigation in science: Learning about the ‘‘Face of science that does not yet know.’’

Science Education, 80, 535–560.

Thomas, K.F. & Barksdale-Ladd, M.A. (2000). Metacognitive processes: Teaching strategies

in literacy education courses. Reading Psychology, 21, 67–84.

White, R.T. & Gunstone, R.F. (1989). Metalearning and conceptual change. International

Journal of Science Education, 11, 577–586.

Woolfolk, A. (2004). Educational psychology (9th ed.) Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.


one course is not enough: preservice elementary teachers' retention of improved views of nature...

Documents