Science & Education

, Volume 24, Issue 7–8, pp 887–912 | Cite as

Understandings of Nature of Science and Multiple Perspective Evaluation of Science News by Non-science Majors

  • Jessica Shuk Ching Leung
  • Alice Siu Ling Wong
  • Benny Hin Wai Yung


Understandings of nature of science (NOS) are a core component of scientific literacy, and a scientifically literate populace is expected to be able to critically evaluate science in the media. While evidence has remained inconclusive on whether better NOS understandings will lead to critical evaluation of science in the media, this study aimed at examining the correlation therein. Thirty-eight non-science majors, enrolled in a science course for non-specialists held in a local community college, evaluated three health news articles by rating the extent to which they agreed with the reported claims and providing as many justifications as possible. The majority of the participants were able to evaluate and justify their viewpoint from multiple perspectives. Students’ evaluation was compared with their NOS conceptions, including the social and cultural embedded NOS, the tentative NOS, the peer review process and the community of practice. Results indicated that participants’ understanding of the tentative NOS was significantly correlated with multiple perspective evaluation of science news reports of socioscientific nature (r = 0.434, p < 0.05). This moderate correlation suggested the association between understanding of the tentative NOS and multiple perspective evaluation of science in the media of socioscientific nature. However, the null result for other target NOS aspects in this study suggested a lack of evidence to assume that understanding the social dimensions of science would have significant influence on the evaluation of science in the media. Future research on identifying the reasons for why and why not NOS understandings are applied in the evaluation will move this field forward.


Science Education Social Dimension Multiple Perspective News Article Peer Review Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. ACARA. (2009). Shape of the Australian curriculum: Science. Retrieved from Accessed September 21, 2014.
  2. Achieve, Inc. (2012). Next generation science standards. Retrieved from Accessed June 14, 2014.
  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(4), 417–437.Google Scholar
  4. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, R. L. (2003). Exploring the role of nature of science understandings in decision-making. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues in science education (pp. 63–79). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understanding of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boersema, D. (1998). The use of real and imaginary cases in communicating the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 255–266). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  8. CDC & HKEAA [Curriculum Development Council & Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority]. (2007, with updates in January 2014). Science education key learning area: Integrated science curriculum and assessment guide (secondary 4–6). Retrieved from Accessed September 21, 2014.
  9. Cobern, W. W., & Loving, C. C. (2001). Defining ‘science’ in a multicultural world: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85(1), 50–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  13. Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289–2315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fuller, S. (1998). Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gregory, J., & Millar, S. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture and credibility. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  17. Harding, A. (2009, February 2). Cutting calories may boost your memory. Cable News Network. Retrieved from Accessed June 14, 2014.
  18. Jarman, R., McClune, B., Pyle, E., & Braband, G. (2012). The critical reading of the images associated with science-related news reports: Establishing a knowledge, skills, and attitudes framework. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement, 2(2), 103–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Khan, U. (2008, July 5). Tofu ‘might harm memory in elderly’. The Telegraph. Retrieved from Accessed June 14, 2014.
  20. Khishfe, R. (2012). Nature of science and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 67–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). ‘to trust or not to trust,…’-pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., et al. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Korpan, C. A., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., & Henderson, J. M. (1997). Assessing literacy in science: Evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education, 81(5), 515–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology. The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 121–144). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. 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. 831–880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. E. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2013). Mixed up about mixed methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 1073–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu, S. Y., Lin, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). College students’ scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision making. Science Education, 95(3), 497–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mason, L. (2000). Role of anomalous data and epistemological beliefs in middle students’ theory change on two controversial topics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(3), 329–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2004). Role of epistemological understanding and interest in interpreting a controversy and in topic-specific belief change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McClune, B., & Jarman, R. (2010). Critical reading of science-based news reports: Establishing a knowledge, skills and attitudes framework. International Journal of Science Education, 32(6), 727–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  33. McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1137–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meichtry, Y. J. (1993). The impact of science curricula on student views about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 429–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ministry of Education. (2012). New Zealand Curriculum Guides Senior Secondary—Science. Retrieved from Accessed September 21, 2014.
  36. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  37. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  38. Norris, S. P. (1995). Learning to live with scientific expertise: Towards a theory of intellectual communalism for guiding science teaching. Science Education, 79, 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 947–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Korpan, C. A. (2003). University students’ interpretation of media reports of science and its relationship to background knowledge, interest, and reading difficulty. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 123–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Phillips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (1999). Interpreting popular reports of science: What happens when the reader’s world meets the world on paper? International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 317–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scharrer, L., Bromme, R., Britt, M. A., & Stadtler, M. (2012). The seduction of easiness: How science depictions influence laypeople’s reliance on their own evaluation of scientific information. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 231–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schommer-Aikins, M., & Hutter, R. (2002). Epistemological beliefs and thinking about everyday controversial issues. Journal of Psychology, 136(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N., & Lederman, N. (2008, March). An instrument to assess views of scientific inquiry: The VOSI Questionnaire. Paper presented at the international conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Baltimore, MD. March 30–April 2, 2008.Google Scholar
  49. The Associated Press. (2008, July 24). Head of US cancer institute warns of cellphone risks. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from Accessed June 14, 2014.
  50. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Wellington, J. (1993). Using newspapers in science education. School Science Review, 74(268), 47–52.Google Scholar
  52. Winn, W. (1989). The design and use of instructional graphics. In H. Mandl & J. Levin (Eds.), Knowledge acquisition from text and pictures (pp. 125–144). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zimmerman, C., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., Klein, J. S., & Klein, P. (2001). Science at the supermarket: A comparison of what appears in the popular press, experts’ advice to readers, and what students want to know. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica Shuk Ching Leung
    • 1
  • Alice Siu Ling Wong
    • 2
  • Benny Hin Wai Yung
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of ScienceThe University of Hong KongPokfulamHong Kong
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationThe University of Hong KongPokfulamHong Kong

Personalised recommendations