research & teaching
By Melanie Kinskey
The instructional implications of in-service and preservice teachers’ views of nature of science (NOS) is a widely researched area (Herman et al., 2017; Lederman & Lederman, 2014). Although NOS is generally defined as the characteristics of science, the work in which scientists engage (Clough, 2006), and the beliefs and values fundamental to scientific knowledge (Lederman, 1992), there is not one single, agreed upon set of NOS aspects teachers are expected to know (Lederman, 2007). The Next Generation State Standards (NGSS) (NGSS Lead States, 2013) identify eight aspects of NOS for K–12 education:
A person’s view of NOS has implications for one’s ability to function as a scientifically informed citizen (Lederman & Lederman, 2014). When students are scientifically literate, they understand the interdisciplinary work in which scientists engage. Scientifically literate students are aware that scientists not only engage in scientific investigations, but must also communicate their results with speaking, listening, and writing skills (Roberts & Bybee, 2014). These interdisciplinary connections to English language arts (ELA) are evident in the NGSS.
Aspects of NOS that are common in elementary teaching and the aspects that were the focus for this study are: a difference between observation and inference; and scientific knowledge being tentative, empirical, subjective, and creative (Olson, 2008).
Tentativeness. Lederman (2007) discusses the importance of understanding that scientific knowledge is not fixed and may change as new evidence is presented through either oral or written communication. The misconception that science is fixed and absolute is common among K–12 students (Lederman, 2007) and preservice teachers (Mesci & Schwartz, 2017). The misbelief that science provides absolute proof may give students the impression that there is always a “right” or “wrong” answer, creating a learning environment where students are less likely to take risks and try something new.
Empirical. Conclusions made in scientific endeavors demand support from evidence (Lederman, 2007). A misconception regarding this aspect of NOS, however, is that all evidence is collected through experimentation. Preservice teachers, especially those in the early years of elementary education, must be aware and willing to teach that evidence may also stem from making observations (McComas, 2004). Understanding the need to support findings with empirical evidence, whether that be through experimentation or more qualitative measures, such as observations, prepares preservice teachers to facilitate scientific discourse that requires elementary students to draw from evidence to support their opinions.
Subjective. Elementary preservice teachers must be prepared to teach their students that science is a subjective, human endeavor (Lederman, 2014). There is a misconception in education that scientists are always objective (McComas, 1998). This misunderstanding, much like the idea that science provides absolute proof, may cause students to look for the correct, most objective set of steps with which to engage in science investigations, missing the opportunity to make observations and interpretations different from their peers. When elementary preservice teachers understand the subjectivity of science, specifically that scientists’ interpretations of empirical data is often influenced by their backgrounds and past experiences (Lederman, 2007), they have a stronger ability to pass this knowledge onto their students. This provides their students opportunities for their own past experiences to be used when analyzing data and drawing their conclusions.
Creative. The idea that science follows a scientific method, and is not a creative process, is a commonly taught myth (McComas, 1998). Olson (2008) found that because of this misbelief, students were less likely to be interested in science because of its tedious routines. Elementary preservice teachers should be informed and comfortable with teaching NOS enough to allow students to be creative in designing their own solutions to science investigations. Understanding the creativity of science will also help elementary preservice teachers feel comfortable taking risks with instructional methods that are “messy” and require creative solutions from students, such as engineering design (Antink-Meyer & Meyer, 2016) and socioscientific issues (Abd-El-Khalick, 2003).
Observations and inferences. Distinguishing the difference between observations and inferences helps elementary aged children understand that using their five senses to make sense of the world is the same as a scientist making sense of data (Leager, 2008). When elementary students are able to move from making observations to making inferences, they are engaging in more complex scientific understandings (Lederman, 2007). Preservice teachers need to understand this difference in order to move their students from lower cognitive engagements with science to more sophisticated methods of inferring from data.
In the present study, I explored how elementary preservice teachers’ views of science and NOS instruction changed after using ELA skills to interview students about science. I sought to do this by providing opportunities for the preservice teachers to employ speaking, listening, and writing skills to collect and communicate data. The elementary preservice teachers recorded themselves administering the Young Children’s Views of Science (YCVS) interview protocol (Lederman et al., 2014) to a group of elementary aged children in grades K–5. After completion of the interview, the preservice teachers listened to the audio of their interview and analyzed student responses. The elementary teachers reflected upon the responses the elementary children provided and wrote a paper communicating their students’ views of NOS, as well as their own understanding of NOS instruction.
The protocol used in this study consists of two parts: (1) twelve questions that assess a student’s basic understanding of science; and (2) five questions that assess a student’s understanding of scientific inquiry and specific aspects of NOS: tentativeness, subjectivity, observation and inference, and the empirical basis of science. At the end of the protocol, the preservice teachers used a scoring chart to analyze their students’ responses. The scoring chart identifies which questions focus on scientific inquiry or specific aspects of NOS. Once the preservice teacher identifies what the question is analyzing, he or she is able to move to the next step, which is identifying if the student’s response is naïve or informed. Lederman et al. (2014) define naïve responses as those which are not consistent with scientific inquiry or aspects of NOS and informed responses as those which are consistent with most parts of scientific inquiry or aspects of NOS. For each question in the protocol, there is a scoring guide that provides sample student responses. These sample responses acted as anchor items for the preservice teachers as they analyzed their data.
The study took place during a 14-week elementary science methods course that emphasized explicit, reflective NOS instruction. The methods course met one day per week for three hours. The class consisted of 22 elementary preservice teachers in their junior year of their undergraduate program. The preservice teachers were completing a field experience that required them to be in a classroom one full day per week for the duration of the 14-week course.
The methods course was designed to develop the preservice teachers’ understandings of science through engagement with NOS aspects. During the first six weeks of the course, I facilitated lessons that focused only on delivering explicit, reflective instruction regarding aspects of NOS. Explicit NOS lessons that were delivered during these six weeks included scrambled sentence, NOS tubes, black box Frankenstein, NOS card sort, observation versus inference mystery sounds, and fossil find. My decision to engage the preservice teachers in hands-on NOS activities is supported by existing research that has found hands-on activities to be impactful in changing NOS views in preservice teachers (Mesci & Schwartz, 2017). In addition to the NOS modules that were facilitated during the methods course, I also assigned coursework that would allow the preservice teachers the opportunity to apply their understandings of NOS. On the final day of the course, I solicited volunteers to allow the work they completed in the course to be analyzed and used in this study, which received prior Institutional Review Board approval before the semester began. One-hundred percent of the preservice teachers in the course (n = 22) agreed to allow their coursework to be used and signed the consent form.
Engaging in scientific discourse that includes speaking, listening, and writing skills is a critical component of comprehending scientific content and becoming scientifically literate (Roberts & Bybee, 2014). As preservice teachers experienced decontexualized, explicit, reflective NOS lessons in my science methods course, they learned how to engage their students in scientifically based discussions that require students to communicate claims and support those claims with evidence.
Scrambled sentence. During this activity, the preservice teachers were placed in pairs and provided an envelope that contained the exact same words. They were told the words in the envelope represented data and to work with their partner to examine the data and draw conclusions about what the sentence might say.
NOS tubes. After providing each group of four or five preservice teachers a cylinder tube with string through it, the preservice teachers began to explore the tube by pulling on one string and making observations. The preservice teachers then communicated their observations with their peers and the class worked together to draw conclusions about what was occurring inside the tube.
Black box Frankenstein. This NOS activity is very similar to the NOS tube in regard to how the preservice teachers interacted with the objects. Each group of four to five preservice teachers were provided with a black box representing Frankenstein’s head that had four dowels protruding from it. The preservice teachers were not able to open the box to peer inside. Inside the box metal washers were hanging on the dowels, and each time the preservice teacher moved a dowel they would hear a clinking sound. As they engaged with the black box, the preservice teachers had to record their observations on a piece of paper and then communicate those observations orally to the class. After presenting their observations and conclusions, the class collaborated to determine what was inside Frankenstein’s head.
Nature of Science card sort. During this activity, the preservice teachers were provided with a set of 15 cards that had theoretical statements concerning science. Individually, each preservice teacher read the statement and had to determine whether he or she agreed or disagreed. Then, the preservice teachers worked in pairs and then groups of four to discuss the statements and try to determine a set of eight cards they could all agree upon.
Observation versus inference. Each preservice teacher was provided with a numbered plastic cylinder container that contained an object. Without opening the container, the preservice teacher had to hold and shake the container to make observations. Then, they used a data sheet to record conclusions about what they thought was inside the container. Once teachers drew a conclusion, they found a peer that had the same number and had to communicate their observations and conclusions. Teachers’ goal was to communicate so clearly they convinced their peer of the object inside the tube.
Fossil find. This final NOS activity is similar to the sentence scramble previously mentioned. Each group of four or five preservice teachers were provided with an envelope of bones. The preservice teachers were instructed to only take a few bones at a time and try to assemble their bones to determine which animal they came from. This activity provided the preservice teachers the opportunity to collaborate with each other as real scientists do as they communicated their thoughts and background knowledge to draw conclusions.
Communication skills. In order to successfully engage in these activities, the preservice teachers had to clearly communicate their thoughts and claims and listen attentively to their peers as they tried to make connections between their evidence and additional evidence other groups may have collected. In addition to listening and speaking with their peers, the preservice teachers practiced thoroughly recording their observations as they made predictions about the data they had collected.
Open-ended responses. I engaged in a pre-/postdesign to assess the elementary preservice teachers’ understanding of science. On the first day of class, to assess their initial understanding of science, I asked the preservice teachers to respond to the open-ended question, “What is science?” This allowed me to gain an understanding of their initial thinking. At the completion of the explicit, reflective NOS modules, the preservice teachers were asked to, once again, respond to the question, “What is science?” The postmodule question provided insight into any growth or changes to their views of science.
YCVS interview reflections. After engaging with the explicit, reflective NOS modules, I also assigned the YCVS interview and analysis paper where the interns were expected to interview a group of 3–5 students and analyze the student responses. In the final section of the paper, I asked the preservice teachers to reflect on their experience facilitating the interview and analyzing the student responses and to consider how their findings will influence their future science instruction. These reflective paragraphs served as another source of data to provide insight into the preservice teachers’ views of NOS, and specifically, NOS instruction.
To analyze the data, I engaged in a two-cycle coding process that included identifying both deductive and descriptive codes, as well as patterns and themes (Saldaña, 2009).
What is science? Open-ended response. As I coded the open-ended responses, I engaged in the following procedure: (1) read each premodule response once; (2) read through the premodule responses a second time and placed a code next to any aspects of NOS (tentative, subjective, creative, theory versus law, empirical, social/cultural, observation versus inference); (3) read each postmodule response once; and (4) read through the postmodule responses a second time and placed a code next to any aspects of NOS (tentative, subjective, creative, theory versus law, empirical, social/cultural, observation versus inference). During my second cycle of codes I did the following: (1) reread through the premodule responses and added a descriptive code to any evidence of understanding science as interdisciplinary; and (2) reread through the postmodule responses and added a descriptive code to any evidence of understanding science as interdisciplinary.
YCVS interview reflections. First-cycle codes of the interview reflections consisted of my reading through each preservice teacher’s reflection. I then went back through all of the reflections and added descriptive codes that identified what the preservice teacher identified as important during the process of speaking with and listening to students and writing the analysis report. Second-cycle codes consisted of my reviewing the first-cycle codes and identifying patterns based on repetition. I then compared these patterns to identify similarities and construct thematic statements to describe the reoccurring patterns.
Analysis of the premodule “What is science?” responses indicated that 22/22 (100%) of the preservice teachers in the course began the semester with “mostly naïve” views of science. The postNOS module results show that 21/22 (95%) of the preservice teachers held “mostly informed” views of science. Examples of the growth made by some preservice teachers may be found in Table 1.
|Table 1. Representative quotes before and after explicit nature of science instruction.|
In the premodule responses to the question “What is science?” the preservice teachers demonstrated a lack of understanding NOS and instead believed science to be more about processes (PST3), content (PST10), and inquiry (PST14). This disconnect between science and NOS is common among teachers (Lederman, 2007). In the postNOS module responses, however, there is evidence of a combination of different aspects of NOS being used to describe science.
The positive change in the views of science displayed by the preservice teachers is representative of what other researchers have found after engaging preservice teachers in explicit, reflective NOS instruction (e.g., Kruse et al., 2017; Ozgelen et al., 2013). By asking the general question “What is science?” the preservice teachers were able to communicate the connections of various aspects of NOS to their understanding of science. This also provides input into possible deficit thinking based on how many and which aspects of NOS are referenced.
After the preservice teachers demonstrated mostly informed views of science, they were assigned the task of administering Lederman et al.’s (2014) YCVS interview protocol to a group of students in their field-based classroom. The purpose of this field-based assignment was to allow the preservice teachers to use ELA skills to determine the level of NOS understanding students in their placement classrooms held. The preservice teachers asked students questions and listened as students reflected on their knowledge of NOS. After engaging in the interview with students, the preservice teachers analyzed and wrote a report communicating students’ views of science. Additionally, they considered implications for their practice. As they considered implications, the preservice teachers reflected on their own beliefs regarding the importance of having children think about what they know about science. Themes with examples from data analysis are illustrated in Table 2.
|Table 2. Representations of preservice teachers’ views about nature of science instruction.|
The responses from the preservice teachers indicate the belief that using speaking and listening skills to administer the YCVS protocol provides valuable insight into student knowledge and misconceptions and has implications for their teaching practice regarding NOS instruction. Some of the preservice teachers found that engaging students in opportunities to reflect on their understanding of science helped to reveal misconceptions held by students. As a teacher, they reflected on ways to use the YCVS protocol formatively to address those misconceptions. Additionally, engaging with the YCVS protocol helped the preservice teachers consider the quality of NOS instruction students were receiving, thus recognizing the need to provide explicit, reflective NOS lessons, such as what they had been reading and learning about in the methods course. This new realization empowered some preservice teachers to become more aware of how their science teaching influences student conceptions.
Overall, the preservice teachers believed the use of the YCVS protocol to solicit student understanding and reflections of NOS to be a positive experience. The administration of the protocol initiated a powerful conversation between one preservice teacher and her collaborating teacher. As she reflected on her experience, the preservice teacher shared the following: I was concerned for their lack of knowledge in aspects of nature of science and scientific inquiry. My teacher says science is her favorite. She was shocked and said that she was glad that I ran the assessment because she now knows that she needs to re-teach and give more emphasis on elements of nature of science.
This preservice teacher’s decision to share her experience with her collaborating teacher illustrates a potential missed opportunity regarding the parameters of the field-based assignment. Including the expectation that the preservice teachers would share their understandings with their collaborating teachers increases the value of the learning experience and should be considered with future cohorts.
The utilization of ELA skills speaking and listening allowed these elementary preservice teachers to gain valuable insight into their students’ understandings of NOS that may not have otherwise occurred. The process of writing to communicate their analyses provided opportunities to reflect on their own understanding of the importance of NOS instruction. The incorporation of the YCVS protocol is common in elementary classrooms with students, but had previously not been used as an educative material for preservice teachers. Therefore, this research has implications for science teacher educators as a potential assignment that will improve preservice teachers’ views of NOS and NOS instruction.
Melanie Kinskey (email@example.com) is an assistant professor of science education in the School of Teaching and Learning at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas.
Abd-El-Khalick F. (2003). Socioscientific issues in pre-college science classrooms: The primacy of learners’ epistemological orientations and views of nature of science. In Zeidler D. L. (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 41–61). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Antink-Meyer A., & Meyer D. (2016). Science teachers’ misconceptions in science and engineering distinctions: Reflections on modern research examples. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(6), 625–647.
Clough M. P. (2006). Learners responses to the demands of conceptual change. Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science and Education, 15(5), 463–494.
Herman B. C., Clough M. P., & Olson J. K. (2017). Pedagogical reflections by secondary science teachers at different NOS implementation levels. Research in Science Education, 47, 1–24.
Kruse J. W., Easter J. M., Edgerly H. S., Seebach C., & Patel N. (2017). The impact of a course on nature of science pedagogical views and rationales: Comparing preservice teachers in their first versus second experience. Science & Education, 26, 613–636.
Leager C. R. (2008). Observation versus inference. Science & Children, 45(5), 48–50.
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. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In Abell S. K. & Lederman N.G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lederman N. G. (2014). Nature of science and its fundamental importance to the vision of the Next Generation Science Standards. Science & Children, 52(1), 8–10.
Lederman N., Abd-El-Khalik F., Bell R., & Schwartz R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.
Lederman J., Bartels S., Lederman N., & Gnanakkan, D., (2014). Demystifying nature of science. Science & Children, 52(1), 40–45.
Lederman N. G., & Lederman J. S. (2012). Nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry: Building instructional capacity through professional development. In Fraser B. J., Tobin K., & McRobbie C. J. (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 335–359). Springer.
Lederman N. G., & Lederman J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In Lederman N.G. & Abell S. K. (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (vol. 2, pp. 600–620). Routledge.
McComas W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In McComas W. F. (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 53—70). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
McComas W. F. (2004). Keys to teaching the nature of science. The Science Teacher, 71(9), 24–27.
Mesci G., & Schwartz R. (2017). Changing preservice science teachers’ views of nature of science: Why some conceptions may be more easily altered than others. Research in Science Education, 47, 329–351.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press.
Olson J. (2008). More than a human endeavor: Teaching the nature of science at the elementary level. Science & Children, 45(5), 43–47.
Ozgelen S., Yilmaz-Tuzun O., & Hanuscin D. (2013). Exploring the development of preservice science teachers’ views on the nature of science in inquiry-based laboratory instruction. Research in Science Education, 43, 1551–1570.
Roberts D. A., & Bybee R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In Lederman N.G. & Abell S. K. (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (vol. 2, pp. 545–558). Routledge.
Saldaña J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications.