Advertisement

Examining the Representations of NOS in Educational Resources

An Analysis of Lesson Plans Aligned with the Next Generation Science Standards
  • Ryan Summers
  • Fouad Abd-El-Khalick
SI: nature of science
  • 83 Downloads

Abstract

Researchers have raised concerns about teachers’ ability to embed nature of science (NOS) in their science instruction, a complicated situation that is certainly impacted by the availability of adequate resources to assist K-12 science teachers. In light of the implementation of the ideas from the Framework for K-12 Science Education and the Next Generation Science Standards in the USA, this study sought to identify and evaluate resources aimed at guiding NOS instruction. A search of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) database for Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS)-aligned instructional resources resulted in an analytical sample of eight lessons. All materials accompanying these lessons were analyzed for their representations of 10 NOS aspects. The evaluation of these materials revealed a prevalence of implicit, naïve representations in the sample lessons (60.4% of all NOS aspects addressed). Examination of the connections to NOS in these lessons leads to a set of recommendations to improve the quantity and quality of NOS representations in future NGSS-aligned instructional resources. The analytical approach used and the issues raised about the presentation and treatment of NOS in precollege lessons are of interest to the broader science education community.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2014). The evolving landscape related to assessment of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (2nd ed., pp. 621–650). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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, 417–436.Google Scholar
  4. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Belarmino, J., Brunner, J., Le, A., Myers, J. Y., Summers, R., Wahbeh, N., Waight, N., Waters, M., & Zeineddin, A. (2017a). A longitudinal analysis of the prominence and representations of nature of science in U.S. high school chemistry, biology, and physics textbooks. In C. McDonald & F. Abd-El-Khalick (Eds.), Representations of nature of science in school science textbooks: global perspectives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Myers, J. Y., Summers, R., Brunner, J., Waight, N., Wahbeh, N., Zeineddin, A., & Belarmino, J. (2017b). A longitudinal analysis of the extent and manner of representations of nature of science in U.S. high school biology and physics textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(1), 82–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. S. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: a year long case study of a fourth grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 1025–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Akerson, V. L., Weiland, I. S., Pongsanon, K., & Nargund, V. (2011). Evidence-based strategies for teaching nature of science to young children. Journal of Kırşehir Education, 11(4), 61–78.Google Scholar
  10. Akerson, V. L., Weiland, I. S., Nargund-Joshi, V., & Pongsanon, K. (2014). Becoming an elementary teacher of nature of science: lessons learned for teaching elementary science. In Science teacher educators as K-12 teachers (pp. 71–87). Dordrecht, Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Allchin, D. (2013). Teaching the nature of science. Perspectives and resources. St. Paul: SHiPS Education Press.Google Scholar
  12. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. American Association for the Advancement of Science (n.d.-a). Fossils 1: fossils and dinosaurs. Retrieved 7 April 2018 http://sciencenetlinks.com/lessons/fossils-1-fossils-and-dinosaurs/.
  15. American Association for the Advancement of Science (n.d.-b). Fossils 2: uncovering the facts. Retrieved 7 April 2018 http://sciencenetlinks.com/lessons/fossils-2-uncovering-the-facts/.
  16. American Geosciences Institute (n.d.). What can fossil footprints tell us?. Retrieved 7 April 2018 https://www.americangeosciences.org/education/k5geosource/activities/investigations/fossils/what-can-fossil-footprints-tell-us.
  17. Anderson, K. J. M. (2016). Changes in how we see scientific inquiry [Blog post]. Retrieved 6 June 2018 from http://www.nstacommunities.org/blog/2016/09/15/changes-in-how-we-see-scientific-inquiry/.
  18. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: what is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–14.Google Scholar
  19. Bartos, S. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2014). Teachers’ knowledge structures for nature of science and scientific inquiry: conceptions and classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1150–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd‐El‐Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon one's conception of the nature of science: A follow‐up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 563–581.Google Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Biointeractive, Howard Hughes Medical Institute (n.d.). The day the Mesozoic died. Retrieved 7 April 2018 https://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/day-mesozoic-died.
  23. Brunner, J. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2017). Representations of nature of science in US elementary science trade books. In Representations of nature of science in school science textbooks (pp. 147–163). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Bybee, R. W. (2014). NGSS and the next generation of science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about nature of science: are they happening? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 497–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 15(5), 463–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Clough, M. P. (2008). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students: questions rather than tenets. California Journal of Science Education, 8(2), 31–40.Google Scholar
  28. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Demirdöğen, B., Hanuscin, D. L., Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E., & Köseoğlu, F. (2016). Development and nature of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for nature of science. Research in Science Education, 46, 575–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Flammer, L. (2014). Science surprises. Indianapolis: Author.Google Scholar
  31. Hanuscin, D. L., Lee, M. H., & Akerson, V. L. (2011). Elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science. Science Education, 95(1), 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2013). Association between experienced teachers’ NOS implementation and reform-based practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(7), 1077–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hodson, D., & Wong, S. L. (2017). Going beyond the consensus view: broadening and enriching the scope of NOS-oriented curricula. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hottecke, D., & Silva, C. C. (2011). Why implementing history and philosophy in school science education is a challenge: an analysis of obstacles. Science & Education, 20(3–4), 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Integrated Teaching and Learning Program, College of Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder (2018). Dinosaur breath. Retrieved 7 April 2018 https://www.teachengineering.org/activities/view/cub_carbon_lesson01_activity1.
  36. Kampourakis, K. (2016). The “general aspects” conceptualization as a pragmatic and effective means to introducing students to nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 667–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Karisan, D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2017). Contextualization of nature of science within the socioscientific issues framework: a review of research. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(2), 139–152.Google Scholar
  38. Khishfe, R. (2012). Nature of science and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 67–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Khishfe, R. (2013). Transfer of nature of science understandings into similar contexts: promises and possibilities of an explicit reflective approach. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2928–2953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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, 551–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krajcik, J., Codere, S., Dahsah, C., Bayer, R., & Mun, K. (2014). Planning instruction to meet the intent of the next generation science standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  44. 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. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  45. 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.Google Scholar
  46. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. (2014a). Is nature of science going, going, going, gone? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 235–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. (2014b). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (2nd ed., pp. 600–620). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Lin, H.-S., & Chen, C.-C. (2002). Promoting preservice chemistry teachers’ understanding about the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 773–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication research: An assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28, 587–604.Google Scholar
  50. McComas, W. F. (Ed.). (2000). The nature of science in science education rationales and strategies. The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  51. McComas, W., & Nouri, N. (2016). The nature of science and the next generation science standards: analysis and critique. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1–22.Google Scholar
  52. National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (2016). Climate change: a human health perspective. Retrieved 7 April 2018 https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/assets/docs_a_e/climate_change_and_human_health_lesson_plan_a_508.pdf.
  53. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  54. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  55. National Science Teachers Association. (2000). NSTA position statement: the nature of science. Retrieved August 1, 2015 from http:///www.nsta.org/.
  56. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  57. Niaz, M. (2016). History and philosophy of science as a guide to understanding nature of science. Revista Científica, 1(24).Google Scholar
  58. Okeanos Explorer Education Materials Collection, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (n.d.). The methane circus. Retrieved 7 April 2018 https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/okeanos/edu/lessonplans/media/09methanecircus.pdf.
  59. Oliveira, A. W., Akerson, V. L., Colak, H., Pongsanon, K., & Genel, A. (2012). The implicit communication of nature of science and epistemology during inquiry discussion. Science Education, 96(4), 652–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Olson, J. K. (2018). The inclusion of the nature of science in nine recent international science education standards documents. Science & Education, 27(7–8), 637–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Osborne, J. (2017). Going beyond the consensus view: a response. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 53–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Peters, E. E. (2009). Developing content knowledge in students through explicit teaching of the nature of science: influences of goal setting and self-monitoring. Science & Education, 21(6), 881–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Roblin, N. P., Schunn, C., & McKenney, S. (2018). What are critical features of science curriculum materials that impact student and teacher outcomes? Science Education, 102(2), 260–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2009). An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 18(5), 561–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ryder, J., & Banner, I. (2011). Multiple aims in the development of a major reform of the national curriculum for science in England. International Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 709–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sawchuk, S. (2018). Educators scramble for texts to match science standards. Education Week. Retrieved 6 June 2018 https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/06/06/educators-scramble-for-texts-to-match-science.html.
  68. 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, 425–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2018). Ambitious science teaching. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  70. Yacoubian, H. A., & BouJaoude, S. (2010). The effect of reflective discussions following inquiry-based laboratory activities on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(10), 1229–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teaching, Leadership, and Professional PracticeUniversity of North DakotaGrand ForksUSA
  2. 2.School of EducationUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations