top of page
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute

Education Quarterly Reviews

ISSN 2621-5799

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
crossref
doi
open access

Published: 15 December 2022

Students’ Nature of Science Understandings: A Phenomenological Study

Umit Duruk, Ayse Kocabük, Emine Cavus

Adıyaman University (Turkey), National Ministry of Education (Turkey)

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
pdf download

Download Full-Text Pdf

doi

10.31014/aior.1993.05.04.656

Pages: 738-755

Keywords: Graduate Students, Nature of Science, Phenomenology, Science Education

Abstract

The efforts shown in recent years related to the reform movements in science education have focused on the assertion that informed nature of science understandings (NOS, hereafter) should be developed. In line with this idea, NOS has become the central component of numerous science curricula. In the study, therefore, it was aimed to determine science education master students’ NOS understandings. The study was conducted in a state university in Turkey during the fall semester of the 2019-2020 academic year and included six science education master students who had taken science methods course. The data were collected through interviews and analyzed by content analysis under phenomenological method. As a result, the students had various and mixed understandings related to the definition of science and characteristics of scientific knowledge. In addition, it was observed that the students handled science with a narrow scope, that they had difficulty in the distinction between theory and law, and that they could not develop informed understandings in the component of theory-laden NOS. In light of these results, the implications and the directions for further study were provided.

References

  1. Abd‐El‐Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science education, 27(1), 15-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690410001673810

  2. Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the development of preservice elementary teachers' views of nature of science. Science Education, 88(5), 785-810. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10143

  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), 417-436. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199807)82:4<417::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-E

  4. Akerson, V. L., Buzzelli, C. A., & Donnelly, L. A. (2008). Early childhood teachers’ views of nature of science: The influence of intellectual levels, cultural values, and explicit reflective teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(6), 748–770. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20236

  5. Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J. A., & McDuffie, A. R. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers' retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 194-213. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20099

  6. Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. A. (2012). A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 291-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9275-2

  7. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-005-4846-7

  8. Cullinane, A., & Erduran, S. (2022). Nature of science in preservice science teacher education–case studies of Irish pre-service science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2022.2042978

  9. Duruk, U., Akgun, A., & Tokur, F. (2019). Prospective early childhood teachers' understandings on the nature of science in terms of scientific knowledge and scientific method. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(3), 675-690.

  10. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21305

  11. Karısan, D., & Cebesoy, U. B. (2018). Exploration of preservice science teachers’ nature of science understandings. PAU Journal of Education, 44(44), 161-177. https://10.9779/PUJE.2018.212

  12. Khishfe, R. (2012). Nature of science and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 67-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.559490

  13. 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

  14. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.672774

  15. 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

  16. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404

  17. Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers' understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 916-929. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199910)36:8<916::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-A

  18. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 831–880). Lawrence Erlbaum.

  19. 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

  20. Liu, S. Y., & Lederman, N. G. (2007). Exploring prospective teachers’ worldviews and conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(10), 1281-1307. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601140019

  21. 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

  22. Morrison, J. A., Raab, F., & Ingram, D. (2009). Factors influencing elementary and secondary teachers' views on the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 384-403. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20252

  23. Özbudak Kılıclı, Z., & Polat (2015). Determination of candidate science teachers’ understanding levels of knowledge of science (VNOS-C). The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 39, 431-444. http://dx.doi.org/10.9761/JASSS3085

  24. Park, H., Nielsen, W., & Woodruff, E. (2014). Students’ conceptions of the nature of science: Perspectives from Canadian and Korean middle school students. Science & Education, 23(5), 1169-1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9613-6

  25. Parker, L. C., Krockover, G. H., Lasher-Trapp, S., & Eichinger, D. C. (2008). Ideas about the nature of science held by undergraduate atmospheric science students. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(11), 1681-1688. https://doi.org/10.1175/2008BAMS2349.1

  26. Sagan, C. (2011). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. Ballantine Books.

  27. Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., & Sowell, S. (2006). Describing teachers' conceptual ecologies for the nature of science. Science Education, 90(5), 874-906. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20153

  28. Turgut, H. (2009). Pre-service science teachers' perceptions about demarcation of science from pseudoscience. Education and Science, 34(154), 50.

  29. Urhahne, D., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2011). Conceptions of the nature of science—are they general or context specific? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(3), 707-730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9233-4

  30. Voss, S., Kruse, J., & Kent-Schneider, I. (2022). Comparing student responses to convergent, divergent, and evaluative nature of science questions. Research in Science Education, 52(4), 1277-1291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-10009-7

  31. Yalvaç, B. & Crawford, B. A. (2002). Eliciting prospective science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science in Middle East Technical University (METU). Proceedings of the 2002 Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science in Ankara.

  32. Yıldırım, A. & Simsek, H. (2016). Qualitative Research Methods in Social Sciences. Ankara: Seckin.

  33. Yin, R. (2016). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish (2nd Ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

bottom of page