Prospective Science Teachers’ Views of Nature of Science: Data from an Intervention Programme

Joana Torres; Clara Vasconcelos

doi:10.29333/ejmste/110783

Full Text (PDF)

Joana Torres ¹ ^* , Clara Vasconcelos ¹ ²

More Detail

¹ Instituto de Ciências da Terra (ICT), PORTUGAL² Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade do Porto, PORTUGAL^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

The development of informed views of nature of science is considered to be a crucial aim for science education. This study assesses Portuguese prospective science teachers’ views of the nature of science before and after an intervention programme that took place in the first year of their master. Nine prospective science teachers that will teach biology and geology in middle and high schools voluntarily participated in this study. Pre and post questionnaires, interviews and lesson plans were analysed. Results show that prospective science teachers improved their views of nature of science. However, some of them still struggled with some aspects, which stresses the need for a better understanding of the factors that influence science teachers’ views of nature of science. Despite the positive results, more research is needed to understand the factors that mediate teachers’ views into their instructional practice, namely by observing and monitoring teachers’ practices and work environment.

Keywords

intervention programme
models
nature of science
science education
science teachers’ views

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, Volume 16, Issue 1, January 2020, Article No: em1807

https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/110783

Publication date: 19 Sep 2019

Article Views: 2686

Article Downloads: 1549

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2006). Over and over again: College students’ views of nature of science. In L.B. Flick, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 389-425). The Netherlands: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5814-1_18.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417-436. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199807)82:4<417::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-E.
Acevedo-Díaz, J. A., García-Carmona, A., & Aragón, M. M. (2016). Un caso de historia de la ciencia para aprender naturaleza de la ciencia: Semmelweis y la fiebre puerperal. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 13(2), 408-422. https://doi.org/10498/18297 http://hdl.handle.net/10498/18297.
Adibelli-Sahin, E., & Deniz, H. (2017). Elementary teachers’ perceptions about the effective features of explicit-reflective nature of science instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 39(6), 761-790. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1308035.
Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295-317. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200004)37:4<295::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-2.
Aragón Méndez, M. M., Acevedo-Díaz, J. A., & García-Carmona, A. (2018). Comprensión de estudiantes de bachillerato y de profesorado sobre naturaleza de la ciencia mediante el análisis del caso histórico de “Rosalind Franklin y la estructura del ADN”. Paper presented at Encuentros de Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales.
Bell, R. L. (2006). Perusing Pandora’s box: Exploring the what, when and how of nature of science instruction. In L. B. Flick, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and Nature of Science (pp. 427-446). The Netherlands: Springer.
Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487-509. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10086.
Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J., & Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 414-436. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20402.
Bell, R. L., Mulvey, B. K., & Maeng, J. L. (2016). Outcomes of nature of science instruction along a context continuum: preservice secondary science teachers’ conceptions and instructional intentions. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 493-520. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1151960.
Chamizo, J. (2013). A new deﬁnition of models and modelling in chemistry’s teaching. Science & Education, 22(7), 1613–1632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9407-7.
Cheng, M., & Lin, J. (2015). Investigating the relationship between students’ views of scientific models and their development of models. International Journal of Science Education, 37 (15), 2453-2475. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1082671.
Deng, F., Chen, D., Tsai, C., & Chai, C. S. (2011). Students’ views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Education, 95(6), 961-999. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20460.
Giere, R. N. (2010). An agent-based conception of models and scientiﬁc representation. Synthese, 172, 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9506-z.
Halloun, I. A. (2007). Mediated Modeling in Science Education. Science & Education, 16, 653 -697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9004-3.
Hazelkorn, E., Beernaert, Y., Constantinou, C. P., Deca, L., Grangeat, M., et al. (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship. Technical report, European commission.
Herman, B. C., & Clough, M. P. (2016). Teachers’ longitudinal NOS understanding after having completed a science teacher education program. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(Suppl 1), 207-227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9594-1.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999-1021). The Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_30.
Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Science teachers’ knowledge about and attitudes towards the use of models and modelling in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(12), 1273-1292. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210163198.
Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2003). Teachers’ views on the nature of models. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1369-1386. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070324.
Kaya, E., & Erduran, S. (2016). From FRA to RFN, or how the family resemblance approach can be transformed for science curriculum analysis on nature of science. Science & Education, 25, 1115–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9861-3.
Kaymakamoğlu, S. E. (2017). Science Teachers’ Conceptualizations and Implications for the Development of the Professional Development Programs. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 3301-3314. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00718a.
Kenyon, L., Davis, E. A., & Hug, B. (2011). Design approaches to support preservice teachers in scientific modeling. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9225-9.
Khishfe, R. (2012). Relationship between nature of science Understandings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 489-514. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21012.
Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Inﬂuence of explicit and reﬂective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10036.
Koksal, M. S., Cakiroglu, J., & Geban, O. (2013). The effect of explicit embedded reflective instruction on nature of science understandings in advanced science students. Journal of Biological Education, 47(4), 208-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2013.799080.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. McComas (Ed.). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47215-5_5.
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Is Nature of Science Going, Going, Going, Gone?. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(3), 235-238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9386-z.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., 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(6), 497-521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034.
Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). The development, use, and interpretation of nature of science assessments. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 971-997). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_29.
Maeng, J. L., Bell, R. L., St. Clair, T., Gonczi, A. L., & Whitworth, B. A. (2018). Supporting elementary teachers’ enactment of nature of science instruction: a randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Science Education, 40(18), 2245-2264. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1528643.
McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 53-70). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47215-5_3.
McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almzroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 3-39). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47215-5_1.
Mesci, G., & Schwartz, R. S. (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(2), 329-351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9503-9.
Moutinho, S., Torres, J., Fernandes, I. & Vasconcelos, C. (2015). Teaching nature of science through PBL: A study with prospective science teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences Journal, 191, 1871-1875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.324.
Oh, P. S., & Oh, S. J. (2011). What teachers of science need to know about models: An overview. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1109–1130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.502191.
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. A report to the Nuffield Foundation.
Pavez, J. M.,Vergara, C. A., Santibañez, D., & Cofré, H. (2016). Using a professional development program for enhancing Chilean biology teachers’ understanding of nature of science (NOS) and their perceptions about using history of science to teach NOS. Science & Education, 25(3), 383-405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9817-7.
Tasar, M. F. (2006). Probing preservice teachers’ understandings of scientific knowledge by using a vignette in conjunction with a paper and pencil test. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(1), 53-70. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75438.
Torres, J., & Vasconcelos, C. (2015). Nature of science and models: Comparing Portuguese prospective teachers’ views. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(6), 1473-1494. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1407a.
Torres, J., & Vasconcelos, C. (2016a). Models in Geoscience classes: How can teachers use them? In Vasconcelos, C. (Ed.). Geoscience Education: Indoor and Outdoor. Springer: Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43319-6.
Torres, J., & Vasconcelos, C. (2016b). Views of nature of science: Adaptation of a questionnaire for Portuguese prospective science teachers. Journal of Science Education, 17(2), 48-52.
Torres, J., & Vasconcelos, C. (2017). Models in science and for teaching science: Data from an intervention programme. International Journal of Learning & Teaching, 9(1), 308-318. https://doi.org/10.18844/ijlt.v9i1.
Torres, J., Amador, F. & Vasconcelos, C. (2016). Developing prospective science teachers’ views of nature of science: The scientific models. In J. Lavonen, K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, A. Uitto & K. Hahl (Eds.), Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2015 Conference. Science Education research: Engaging learners for a sustainable future, Part 6 (co-ed. M. Izquierdo & V. Vesterinen), (pp. 820-827). Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki.
Torres, J., Moutinho, S., & Vasconcelos, C. (2015). Nature of science, scientific and geoscience models: Examining students and teachers’ views. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 12(4), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10148a.
Wahbeh, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2014). Revisiting the translation of nature of science understandings into instructional practice: Teachers’ nature of science pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 36(3), 425-466. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.786852.

How to cite this article

APA

Torres, J., & Vasconcelos, C. (2020). Prospective Science Teachers’ Views of Nature of Science: Data from an Intervention Programme. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(1), em1807. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/110783

Vancouver

Torres J, Vasconcelos C. Prospective Science Teachers’ Views of Nature of Science: Data from an Intervention Programme. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2020;16(1):em1807. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/110783

AMA

Torres J, Vasconcelos C. Prospective Science Teachers’ Views of Nature of Science: Data from an Intervention Programme. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2020;16(1), em1807. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/110783

Chicago

Torres, Joana, and Clara Vasconcelos. "Prospective Science Teachers’ Views of Nature of Science: Data from an Intervention Programme". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2020 16 no. 1 (2020): em1807. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/110783

Harvard

Torres, J., and Vasconcelos, C. (2020). Prospective Science Teachers’ Views of Nature of Science: Data from an Intervention Programme. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(1), em1807. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/110783

MLA

Torres, Joana et al. "Prospective Science Teachers’ Views of Nature of Science: Data from an Intervention Programme". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 16, no. 1, 2020, em1807. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/110783