The effect of explicit embedded reflective instruction

Journal of Biological Education

ISSN: 0021-9266 (Print) 2157-6009 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjbe20

The effect of explicit embedded reflective instruction on nature of science understandings in advanced science students Mustafa Serdar Koksal, Jale Cakiroglu & Omer Geban To cite this article: Mustafa Serdar Koksal, Jale Cakiroglu & Omer Geban (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, DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2013.799080 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2013.799080

Published online: 29 May 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 206

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjbe20 Download by: [Inonu Universitesi]

Date: 05 January 2016, At: 02:56

208

Journal of Biological Education, 2013 Vol. 47, No. 4, 208–223, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2013.799080

Research paper The effect of explicit embedded reflective instruction on nature of science understandings in advanced science students Mustafa Serdar Koksala, Jale Cakiroglub and Omer Gebanc a

Department of Elementary Education, Faculty of Education, Inonu University, Malatya, Turkey; Department of Elementary Education, Faculty of Education, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey; cDepartment of Secondary Science & Mathematics Education, Faculty of Education, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

Downloaded by [Inonu Universitesi] at 02:56 05 January 2016

b

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of explicit-embedded-reflective (EER) instruction in nature of science (NOS) understandings of ninth-grade advanced science students. This study was conducted with 71 students, who were divided into three groups, by using non-equivalent quasi-experimental design. In the treatment groups, the EER teaching was conducted, while in the comparison group NOS instruction was carried out in the same time interval by lecturing, demonstration and questioning strategies. Views on Nature of Science Questionnaire-Form C and follow-up interviews were used for data collection. Categorisation of the participants’ profiles on aspects of the NOS was used for data analysis. According to the results, participants had misunderstandings about ‘scientific methods’, ‘laws and theories’ and ‘observation and inference’, while they had expert views on ‘the role of creativity and imagination’ in the beginning of the study. For changing naive NOS understandings, the EER approach was found to be effective.

Keywords: nature of science; explicit-embedded-reflective instruction; biology education; advanced science students; cell unit

Introduction One of the purposes of biology education is to help people in using advances of biotechnology, biomedicine, genetics engineering and genetics for their daily lives and in understanding science, scientific knowledge and scientific process for informed decision making on socio-scientific issues. In many curricula and reform documents, the importance of biology education as a scientific discipline in the daily lives of people is discussed under the term of ‘scientific literacy’ (SL) (Project 2061 2007; Turkish Ninth Grade Biology Curriculum 2007). SL is described as: an individual’s scientific knowledge and use of that knowledge to identify questions, to acquire new

knowledge, to explain scientific phenomena, and to draw evidence based conclusions about sciencerelated issues, understanding of the characteristic features of science as a form of human knowledge and enquiry, awareness of how science and technology shape our material, intellectual, and cultural environments, and willingness to engage in sciencerelated issues, and with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen. (OECD 2009, 14)

Biology lessons are one of the most important contexts for teaching important aspects of SL at high school level. The high school years include a transition period from studentship to citizenship and biology units

Corresponding author: Mustafa Serdar Koksal, Inonu University, Faculty of Education, Department of Elementary Education, Malatya, Turkey. Email: [email protected] Ó 2013 Society of Biology


____________________________________________________________________________ RESEARCH PAPER include socio-scientific issues such as cloning and genetically modified foods requiring informed decisions and the units involve scientific knowledge required in individual use for overcoming daily life problems including microbial deseases and obesity. As a type of SL, the concept of ‘biological literacy’ (BL) is identified as an aim of biology education. Therefore, BL might be described as an educational aim that includes ability to understand basic conceptual constructs of the life sciences, ability to parse arguments about risks and benefits of biological manipulations, engagement in discussions, having functional knowledge about biology and being confident about it, applying this knowledge to real life situations, making informed decisions using biology knowledge, knowing the nature of biology as ‘a way of knowing’, understanding how scientists use methods and processes in their studies on biology, engaging in discussions about biological phenomena, and seeking valid information about biology (Miller 2011; Damastes and Wandersee 1992; Klymkowsky, Garwin-Doxas, and Zeilik 2003; Rennie 2005; Turkish Ninth Grade Biology Curriculum 2007; Uno and Bybee 1994). In the definition of BL, two of the most important aspects are teaching about content knowledge and aspects of nature of biology or science in general, which are objectives for the education of all people for a scientifically and biologically literate society (Damastes and Wandersee 1992; Uno and Bybee 1994). Especially, the nature of science aspect of biological literacy has been studied for a long time. Nature of science (NOS) refers to the epistemology and sociology of science, science as a way of knowing, and the values and beliefs inherent to scientific knowledge and its development (Lederman 1992, 331). NOS has many aspects for science education from scientific method to science in society. As a result of epistemological and educational studies on these aspects, certain aspects of NOS have been determined to be taught in schools (McComas 1998). The aspects of NOS include characteristics of scientific knowledge (scientific knowledge is tentative, is dependent on evidence and observation, is based on theories, and is dependent on social and cultural contexts), differences between laws and theories (there is no hierarchy between theory and law, theories and laws have different roles in science), scientific methods (there is no universally accepted one way to do science), place of creativity and imagination in science (creativeness and imagination exist in every stage of science), characteristics of scientists (scientists are subjective) and definition of science (science is a way of knowing) (Lederman et al. 2002; McComas 1998). Parallel to the importance of aspects of the NOS for daily lives of people, many biology lessons, textbooks and subjects begin with NOS issues and continue with content knowledge. In spite of this priority, the literature has consistently shown the existence of many misunderstandings about aspects of

the NOS in biology textbooks and the minds of teachers, pre-service teachers, teacher educators and students (Chiapetta and Fillman 2007; Irez 2009; McComas 2003; Abd-El-Khalick, Waters, and Le 2008; Akerson, Morrison, and McDuffie 2006; Blanco and Niaz 1997; Irez 2006; Ryan and Aikenhead 1992; Tsai 2006a). For example, in Turkish biology textbooks, Irez (2009) showed that scientific method was depicted as a step-by-step procedure and existence of a hierarchy between law and theory was also presented. The majority of the studies on aspects of the NOS were conducted with prospective teachers and teachers. The number of studies with high school students are fewer than those with other groups (Dogan and Abd-El-Khalick 2008). Tsai’s (2006b) study, which is one of the studies conducted with 428 high school students in Eastern societies, showed that the majority of the high school students believed in a more tentative nature of biological knowledge than physics knowledge. Cartier (2000) studied understandings of 26 high school students taking a genetic course on scientific modelling and models, and found that 42% of the participants believed in models as physical/visual replicas of ideas. In another study, Sandoval and Morrison (2003) found that high school students falsely defined a theory as ‘a proven hypothesis’ and could not explain the role of theories in science. Another study by Khishfe and Lederman (2007) indicated that high school students believed that scientific knowledge would not change and that these students presented naive views on observation versus inference and creative/imaginative science aspects. In addition, the majority of the students had naive understandings on subjectivity. These findings point out the problem of misunderstandings on aspects of the NOS and warn about probable future insufficient outcomes in terms of decision-making on science-related subjects. In the literature, there is a debate about asseessment and place of NOS in schools, some see NOS as a knowledge or understanding required to be learnt at the K-12 level (Schwartz, Lederman, and Abd-El-Kahlick 2012) whereas others see NOS as a type of functional understanding and an analytical skill (Allchin 2011). As stated by Schwartz, Lederman, and Abd-El-Khalick (2012), NOS is not an analytical skill, it is a cognitive outcome (such as knowledge presented in schools) that is important and developmentally appropriate to teach in K-12 science education. In fact, reading about an experimental study and finding mistakes in the process is different from evaluating nature of knowledge produced by this experimental process. The former is related to analytical skills whereas the latter is related nature of science understanding. Based on requirement of learning aspects of the NOS as a type of knowledge, it can be said that knowing about aspects of the NOS is a basis for making informed decisions

209


210

M.S. KOKSAL ET AL. ______________________________________________________________________________________________

on science-related subjects. Whatever place is given to the NOS in terms of scientific literacy, there is emprical evidence that informed NOS understanding is related to informed decision making on science (Khishfe 2012; Greavez-Fernandez 2010). Therefore, only having informed NOS understanding as a type of knowledge rather than a type of functional analytical skill is a requirement in making informed decisions in line with being scientifically literate. Greavez-Fernandez (2010) conducted research on the relationship between NOS understanding and decision-making. His findings showed that NOS ideas are useful for making informed decisions and making informed decisions is dependent on context including content of subjects such as science. Therefore, teaching NOS aspects and changing misunderstandings on NOS to improve decision-making ability of the students should include a context and planned action toward objectives regarding aspects of the NOS. Reducing the misunderstandings of the NOS is not an easy task since these understandings are rooted in previous experiences. In spite of the commonness and the long-lasting nature of the problem, the literature has provided us with some approaches to address misunderstandings on aspects of the NOS in classrooms. The first and an old approach is the historical approach. In this approach, it is claimed that incorporation of historical examples into science teaching serves to enhance the understandings of students on aspects of the NOS (Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002). Examples of the historical approach to teach NOS aspects exist in the literature. But there is a conflict among them about the effectiveness of the historical approach to teach aspects of the NOS (Olson et al. 2005; Irwin 2000; Lin and Chen 2002; Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman 2000, as cited in Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002, from Welch and Walberg 1972 and Klopfer and Cooley 1963). The second approach to teach the NOS is the implicit approach in relation to the curricula of the 1960s and 1970s such as Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) and Physical Science Study Curriculum (PSSC) (Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002). This approach claims that the use of inquiry and science process skills instruction will enhance students’ understandings about aspects of the NOS (Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002; Palmquist and Finley 1997; Palmquist and Finley 1998). Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000) have stated that this assumption is related to the view of science educators that aspects of the NOS are affective variables. But studies have shown ineffectiveness of the implicit approach to teach NOS aspects (Bell, Matkins, and Gansneder 2011; Meichtry 1992; Bell et al. 2003). The third approach which is stated as an effective approach in changing NOS understandings in the literature is the explicit embedded reflective (EER) approach in

which NOS knowledge is learnt by purposefully applying the aspects to science content. This approach includes setting objectives, preparing activities, conducting instruction and assessing individuals on aspects of the NOS (Khishfe and Lederman 2006). Buaraphan (2012) and Abd-El-Khalick and Akerson (2009) defined explicit-reflective instruction as a process of setting cognitive objectives on aspects of the NOS as well as other cognitive learning contents and making intentional plans to teach them, conducting teaching activities in line with the objectives and providing an opportunity to examine learning experiences from the NOS framework at the end of teaching. To test the effectiveness of the approach, some studies have been conducted (Cil and Cepni 2012; Khishfe and Lederman 2007; Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002). Two of them have used environmental science, biology, chemistry and global warming as contexts to teach aspects of the NOS. Khishfe and Lederman’s (2007) experimental study was conducted using explicit-reflective instruction with 89 ninth and 40 tenth and eleventh graders. The study lasted for five- to six-week units of environmental science, biology and chemistry. As a result of this study, explicit-reflective instruction improved students’ understandings on aspects of the NOS. Another study was conducted by Khishfe and Lederman (2006), this was an experimental study with 42 ninth graders. The results of the study showed that the EER approach is effective in the improvement of ninth grade students’ NOS understandings in the context of global warming. In the literature on explicit-reflective NOS instruction, the majority of the experimental studies cover studies conducted with pre-service teachers (Celik and Bayrakceken 2012; Ku¨c¸u¨k 2008; Schwartz et al. 2002; Akerson, Buzelli, and Donnelly 2008; Bell, Matkins, and Gansneder 2011). Therefore, the lack of studies with high school students signals the need for experimental studies to be conducted with high school students (Khishfe and AbdEl-Khlick 2002). At the same time, studies on the effectiveness of EER-based NOS instruction in the understandings of a special group of high school students named ‘academically advanced science students’ were not found in the literature. These students generally take more science courses; therefore, they are more experienced in science content than regular students. Likewise, they are selected for programmes which include more science content after they take special tests on science content. They are generally at the top of the distribution of students taking science ¨ zaslan, Yıldız, and C content tests and IQ tests (O ¸ etin 2009). In addition, these students will probably have status to make important science-related decisions in the future for other people due to their success in science content. Therefore, academically advanced science students are an important group for studying


____________________________________________________________________________ RESEARCH PAPER aspects of the NOS due to their importance for decision making and their experience in science content which is different from that of ordinary students. In the present study, the cell and cellular organisation unit was selected as science content because it is a type of rich subject matter for studying aspects of the NOS. This unit includes many topics in which some of the aspects of the NOS can be embedded such as change of cell theory (tentativeness), differences in membrane models (subjectivity) and difference in microscopic livings and their compartments (observation and inference). At the same time, the unit is a pre-requisite for further learning of important biology subjects such as biological organisation, biological systems, organs and classification. The importance of the unit is also clear due to the existence of the subjects of the unit in international examination studies including OECD/PISA (2003) and TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics) (Mullis et al. 2007) science framework for eighth graders. In addition, every citizen needs to learn about cell and cellular organisation for his/her daily life. The cell unit is related to many aspects of life such as stem cell applications, diseases including white blood cell activities, bleeding and development. Therefore, the cell unit is an important component of biological literacy and the knowledge about cell and cellular organisation should be combined with NOS knowledge to make NOS understandings more related to decision-making processes in science-related subjects. Considering the importance of advanced students for NOS studies and the need for studies on EER instruction at high school level, the purpose of the present study is to investigate the effectiveness of the EER-based NOS instruction on NOS understandings of ninth grade advanced science students in the context of ‘cell unit’. The research questions of this study are: (1) What are NOS understandings of advanced science students before and after the EER based NOS instruction? (2) Is the EER based NOS instruction effective on NOS misunderstandings of ninth grade advanced science students in the context of ‘cell unit’?

Method In this study, a non-equivalent quasi-experimental design was used. The study took seven weeks. For the purpose of the study, the comparison group pretest-posttest design was used with qualitative data collection techniques (Fraenkel and Wallen 2006; Cohen and Manion 1994). The design of the study is the most appropriate design if the true experimen-

tal designs (eg random assignment) are not provided (Cohen and Manion 1994). For the purpose of the study, three intact groups from a science high school were used. In two treatment groups, 47 of the participants were involved, while 24 of the participants were enrolled in comparison group activities. For ethical considerations, a consent form explaining the purpose of the study, role of participants, required time, possible harms and benefits, way of providing security of data, use of pseudonymns and passwords in data files was used. The students showed the consent forms to their parents and they signed them after acquiring permission from their parents. Moreover, a research proposal was presented to a panel of experts (members of a centre called Applied Ethics Research Center in a Turkish university) for possible ethical problems and they also approved it.

Participants This study was conducted with 71 academically advanced ninth-grade science students (female = 38, male = 33) (15-years-old) enrolled in three different intact classes of a science high school in Turkey. Science high schools have more time and a more dense content for science courses than regular high schools do (six hours per week for ninth grades, 12 hours per week for tenth, eleventh and twelfth grades). In regular high schools, six hours per week for ninth grade, six hours per week for tenth grade, nine hours per week for eleventh grade and nine hours per week for twelfth grade are allocated to science courses. The science high schools which are supported by the state and located only in the capitals of the provinces of the country (the number of cities is over 80) provide advanced science courses. Advanced science students are selected in Turkey according to their results in a national examination. According to 2007 records of the Ministry of Education, 818,359 students took the examination (Turkish Ministry of Education 2007). The students selected for science high schools should get higher scores on the ‘science and mathematics’ part of the examination. The majority of the students in these schools are in the 5% highest scorers and the participants of this study are in the top 2% of the test takers. Teachers are also selected for the schools by a formal evaluation process and examination. The students in the groups are similar due to the fact that they have taken the same courses from the same biology teacher before noon and they have similar scores on the national examination. All of the students at the same level also take the same courses with the same content due to a common science curriculum prepared by Ministry of Education. The majority of the participants did not enrol in any activity or course related to philosophy, history of

211

212

M.S. KOKSAL ET AL. ______________________________________________________________________________________________

science and scientific methods. The education levels of their mothers and fathers chiefly includes ‘high school’ and ‘university’ levels. As another descriptive characteristic, the majority of the mothers have not been working at any job in spite of a certain number of university graduate mothers, while the majority of the fathers have been working.

Instruments


For the purpose of this study, ‘VNOS-C Questionnaire’ developed by Lederman et al. (2002) and follow-up interviews as pre- and post-measurments were used after permission was obtained by email from the authors. VNOS-C has 10 open-ended questions about aspects of the NOS. One example of the questions in VNOS-C is presented below (Abd-El-Khalick 1998; Lederman et al. 2001): Science textbooks often define a species as a group of organisms that share similar characteristics and can interbreed with one another to produce fertile offspring. How certain are scientists about their characterisation of what a species is? What specific evidence do you think scientists used to determine what a species is?

The explanation of this item is presented below (Abd-El-Khalick 1998; Lederman et al. 2001): This question refers respondents to a concept from the biological sciences in order to assess their understanding of the role of human inference, creativity, and subjectivity in science. Desired responses describe the idea that ‘species’ is defined by scientists to explain observed and inferred relationships, and that definitions as well as concepts in science are created by scientists to be useful for their endeavors. Additionally, this question elicits responses concerning the role of models in science and that scientific models are not copies of reality.

VNOS-C questions target different aspects of the NOS; the first question is about the definition of science, the second and third questions ask about scientific methods, the fourth and seventh questions are related to the difference between inference and observation. The fifth and sixth questions are related to the difference between laws and theories and tentativeness, while the eighth and tenth questions ask about the place of imagination and creativity in science, and social and cultural embeddedness of science relatively. The final question, the ninth question, is associated with subjectivity of scientists. VNOS-C was preferred in this study due to the fact that it was developed for gathering data on aspects of the NOS in intervention rather than descriptive studies. Effectiveness in in-depth data collection, easiness in profiling answers and existence of strong

validity and reliability evidence were other factors for choosing VNOS-C in this study (Lederman et al. 2002). VNOS-C was applied to all participants as a whole-class application, and then, follow-up face-toface interviews were carried out with 8 (34%, four for pre-interview and four for post-interview) randomly selected students in a separate room before teaching applications were not started and after all the teaching process was completed. The participants of the interviews are not the same in pre- and post follow-up interviews. In the follow-up interviews, questions derived from VNOS-C answers of each participant and content teaching were asked to establish validity of the data and to understand more clearly answers of the participants on VNOS-C. In the follow-up interviews, the researchers asked about aspects of the NOS by using examples regarding the biology content taught in the lessons. In this phase, both biology content of the lessons and VNOS-C questions were connected. For example, ‘why did you reach different findings on microscopic illustration of Pandorina colony when you observed the same thing?’ was asked to get more detailed information about the understandings of the participants on aspects of the NOS. In this way, VNOS-C questions were tied to biology content of the lessons, and also measurement on the related NOS aspect was freed from the limitation caused by generic nature of VNOS-C questions. Examples of naive and expert views on aspects of the NOS are presented in the ‘findings’ section.

Analysis of data The qualitative data analysis is interpretive in nature and focuses on the meanings that participants gave to the aspects of NOS. The analysis approach used by Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002) has been utilised by establishing profiles of the participants on aspects of the NOS based on the statements provided by Lederman et al. (2002), Khishfe and Lederman (2006), Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002) and McComas (1998). The purpose of interviewing after VNOS-C application is to provide evidence for face validity of the answers to VNOS-C questionnaire and to understand more clearly answers of the participants on VNOS-C. In addition to checking face validity of VNOS-C answers by follow-up interviews, as another strategy to increase trustworthiness of the interpretations on the VNOS-C data, one of researchers and another independent researcher also analysed a random sample (40%) of the answers to VNOS-C in each group and assigned the participants into different categories. The agreement between the two researchers was found to be 79% for pre-questionnaire answers and 85% for post-questionnaire answers. The analysis in this study involved


____________________________________________________________________________ RESEARCH PAPER the categorisation of students’ responses into ‘Naive (N)’, ‘Transitional (T)’, ‘Expert (E)’, or ‘Not Applied (NA)’ for each NOS aspect. The categorisation was made by determining acceptable, non-acceptable and transitional answers based on the definitions and frameworks of Lederman et al. (2002), Khishfe and Lederman (2006), Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002) and McComas (1998). It is necessary to mention that in this way, each of the seven NOS aspects was targeted in more than one item in the questionnaire. For the categorisation of a participant’s view on any aspect as expert, each individual had to provide evidence for an informed view in all of the answers to the items. A view was categorised as naive when the participant could not exhibit any informed view on the targeted aspect of NOS in response to any item in the questionnaire. If any participant demonstrated expert views in response to some but not all items, then the view was categorised as transitional. Apart from these, it is important to note that sometimes some participants can demonstrate expert views on the targeted aspect of NOS in response to three items, on the other hand another participant can present expert views in response to two items, and still another different participant can provide expert views in response to only one item. In addition, some answers sometimes might include data which can not be categorised or students leave a question unanswered; therefore, this type of data is categorised as ‘not applied’. To compare the groups, frequencies and percentages of the participants in each category were investigated for pre-treatment and post-treatment data. There is an important information to consider that the findings of this study on level of change in content knowledge were not reported in here due to page limitation, the findings on content knoweldge will be reported elsewhere.

Treatment The intervention in the treatment groups and the instruction based on lecturing, demonstration and questioning in the comparison group were started after the applications of the instruments and the follow-up interviews with four students. All of the activities except the cube activity (Lederman and Abd-El-Khalick 1998) were prepared by the first researcher of this study. The other activities were prepared by the help of two experts on the NOS. After the intervention, VNOS-C questionnaire was applied as post-measurement, and then, follow-up interviews were conducted with four different randomly selected participants from the participants interviewed at the beginning. This method was chosen in order to provide more representative understandings of the participants and to provide evidence on face validity of answers on VNOS-C

questionnaire. In this study, the following aspects of the NOS as recommended by the literature were focused on. These are ‘tentativeness’, ‘empirical basis of science’, ‘the distinction between observation and inference’, ‘the role of creativeness and imagination’ ‘subjectivity’, ‘theories and laws’ and ‘scientific methods’ (Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002; Khishfe and Lederman 2006). These aspects are frequently cited problematic aspects for high school students (Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002; Khishfe and Lederman 2006; Lederman et al. 2002; McComas 1998, 53– 70). The sequence of the intervention titled as ‘the EER based NOS instruction’ can be seen in Table 1. As presented in Table 1, the EER-based NOS instruction includes conducting planned activities in which NOS aspects are embedded in the content, asking some discussion questions about the aspects, and then, doing a reflection activity on the aspects embedded in the content by comparing previous and current understandings, and explicitly explaining aspects of the NOS to the students in collaborative groups. For preparing the teacher to apply the EER-based NOS instruction, a booklet explaining the theoretical basis of the application and showing examples of the application was provided. Moreover, meetings with the teacher on the application were done by the researchers before the experimental process was begun. In the process of the treatment, the researchers made two assessments through openended questions for explicitly evaluating the understandings on the aspects of NOS to check whether the situation was in line with the objectives determined at the beginning. The assessments were made in the fourth and seventh weeks’ lessons after the NOS activities. In the comparison group, NOS aspects were taught to the students using the instruction including lecturing, demonstration and questioning. During the lecturing, mostly ‘what and which’ questions which were not reflection questions, were asked to the students. The time for each lecturing on the aspects of NOS in the comparison group was the same as the time for NOS activities done in the treatment groups. Different from the experimental treatment, any specific instructional objectives on the aspects of NOS were not determined and any assessment on the aspects was not made in the comparison group. First, the content was explained, and then, the aspects of NOS were explained with the same approach used for the content. One example of the activities used in the treatment group, was about unicellular, multicellular and colonial livings. The content was taught by using lecturing, questioning and demonstration. Then, a sample of photographs of Pandorina colony culture taken through a microscope was given to the students. In the photographs, both the whole colony and individual cells could be seen, but every

213

Subject of the ‘Cell’ Unit

Basic compounds in livings

History of liveliness and views on it

Common characteristics of livings

Organic and inorganic compounds in livings

Cell theory

Cell model

Sequence/ Time

1/120 minutes

2/45 minutes

3/45 minutes

4/90 minutes

5/90 minutes

6/90 minutes

All seven aspects

Creativeness and imagination

Hypothesis, theory and law

Empirical basis

Observation and inference

One way to do science

⁄

Target NOS Aspects

Table 1. Content and sequence of ‘explicit-embedded-reflective’ NOS instruction

for NOS

for NOS for

for

60 minutes for content 30 minutes for NOS




60 minutes content 60 minutes 25 minutes content 20 minutes

Sequence

lecturing, questioning and demonstration

⁄

⁄

giving examples on NOS aspect from content with activities

giving examples on NOS aspect from content with activities making discussion ⁄ reflection on examples about the content ⁄ explicitly explaining the aspects ⁄ lecturing, questioning and demonstration

⁄

⁄

giving examples from content with activities making discussion ⁄ reflection on examples about the content ⁄ explicitly explaining the aspects ⁄ explicitly evaluation of the learners on the aspects ⁄ lecturing, questioning and demonstration

⁄

⁄


⁄

⁄

(Continued)

Introduction of content knowledge and NOS aspects by lecturing


⁄

⁄

⁄

Activities (Italic Words for EER, Normal words for content teaching way)

Downloaded by [Inonu Universitesi] at 02:56 05 January 2016 214 M.S. KOKSAL ET AL. ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Subject of the ‘Cell’ Unit

Cell membranes

Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic cells and Plant and Animal cells

One cell, colony, multicellular organisms

Sequence/ Time

7/45 minutes

8/90 minutes

9/45 minutes

Table 1. (Continued)

Observation and inference

Subjectivity

Tentativeness

Target NOS Aspects




Sequence

⁄

giving examples on NOS aspect from content with activities making discussion ⁄ reflection on examples about the content ⁄ explicitly explaining the aspects ⁄ explicitly evaluation of the learners on the aspects

⁄

⁄


⁄

⁄


⁄

⁄

making discussion reflection on examples about the content ⁄ explicitly explaining the aspects ⁄ lecturing, questioning and demonstration

⁄

Activities (Italic Words for EER, Normal words for content teaching way)


____________________________________________________________________________ RESEARCH PAPER 215


216

M.S. KOKSAL ET AL. ______________________________________________________________________________________________

group saw either individual cells or a colony, or multicellular structure. Under each photograph such questions about the characteristics of the living things as ‘Is the living thing unicellular, multicellular or colonial?’ and ‘Is it surrounded by any structure?’ were located. Each photograph showed different sides of the sample and included either unicellular cells or the whole colony, or partial colony. After making an observation using these photographs in the group, each group presented their ideas, or inferences about the characteristics of living things. Then, the teacher showed the original photographs of the whole colony and started the discussion on the differences between the original characteristics and the students’ findings. During this activity, the majority of the students provided very different observation results and made inferences on the Pandorina colony. Some of the students observed the colonies and they called them a colony, whereas another group of students observed separate Pandorina cells and called them unicellular organisms. Then, the participants discussed the differences between observation and inference. After the discussion and the explicit explanation of the teacher about the difference between observation and inference, the participants reflected on their improvement on the aspects of the NOS by using a reflection paper form in their activity sheet. In the reflection paper, three questions were asked ‘What were your ideas about the difference between inference and observation before?’ ‘What are your your ideas about the difference between inference and observation now?’, ‘Can you compare your previous ideas and current ideas on the difference between inference and observation?’ In the process of teaching cell and cellular organisation content, the teacher has been using techniques including ‘lecturing’, ‘questioning’ and ‘demonstration’. These techniques have been indicated as the most frequently used ways of teaching biology by teachers in Turkey (Atıcı and Bora 2004). All of the lessons were given in one biology laboratory in which the students were seated and there was one table for each group. Although there was a computer, projector and television to be used in the laboratory, the teacher did not use these means. The treatment and comparison groups differed in terms of planning, instructing and evaluating aspects of the NOS. In the comparison group there is no objective and plan to teach aspects of the NOS in spite of making NOS instruction by lecturing, questioning and demonstration as similar to biology teaching in ordinary classrooms while there is intentional planning and objectives to teach aspects of the NOS in the treatment group. In other words, understanding aspects of the NOS in the treatment groups is purposefully targeted through examples, discussion, explaining and making reflections which are components of explicit-reflective instruction. All of the

applications are based on a planned process in the treatment groups. In the comparison group, all teaching activities for both biology content and NOS content are made by using lecturing, questioning and demonstration, but NOS content teaching is not planned in detail. In the study, teaching times for both NOS and biology content are matched for the groups. During the time for NOS teaching, the students passively listen to the teacher, answer the ‘what and which’ questions (eg What are the characteristics of scientists?) and look at the diagrams (scientific method) presented by the teacher. However, the students in the treatment groups actively study the examples (eg Pandorina photographs) provided by the teacher, make discussions on associations between the study and aspects of the NOS, reflect on their learning of NOS aspects and listen to the teacher’s lecture on NOS aspects. All of the activities in the treatment group are based on an explicit plan and objectives. As another difference between the groups, two explicit assessments on aspects of the NOS are done in the treatment groups while there is no assessment on aspects of the NOS in the comparison group. One example of assessment questions is: ‘Choose one of the options (yes or no) on the claim that scientists are objective’ and ‘Explain your reasons to choose one of the options’. The researcher also prepared a handout explaining the theoretical foundations of the applications and a guide booklet on how to proceed in the instruction to increase treatment fidelity and to help the teacher in the applications. In addition to these applications, an observation checklist for the EER instruction was prepared by using the definitions of Lederman (1998, 2007), Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002), Khishfe and Lederman (2006), and Akerson and Volrich (2006) on EER instruction to provide evidence for treatment fidelity. Then, two different individuals were asked independently to observe the teaching on aspects of the NOS by using the checklist. In total, six hours of the comparison group and eight hours of the experimental group were observed during the study. The difference in observation times for the treatment and control groups is due to time limitations of the observers. Two examples of the observation sheet items are ‘Objectives on aspects of the NOS are explicitly represented in lesson plan’ and ‘Students makes reflection after the discussing on aspects of the NOS’, the observers select one of the options, ‘yes’, ‘partially observed’ and ‘no’ for each item. The results on the ratings of the observers have shown that the researcher provided the important components of the EER instruction in both of the treatment groups. One important point in these observations is that the participants in the comparison group also made explanations and discussions on aspects of the NOS similar to the participants in the treatment groups. These two activities, explanation

____________________________________________________________________________ RESEARCH PAPER and discussion, are considered very hard to control, especially in the groups including advanced students because asking challenging questions, discussions and explanations are the most important characteristics which are brought into science classrooms by these students (Park and Oliver 2009).


Results Understandings of the participants in the treatment and comparison groups about aspects of the NOS before and after the intervention are presented in Table 2. According to Table 2, the majority of the participants in both the treatment groups and the comparison group had naive views in terms of ‘scientific methods’, ‘laws and theories’ and ‘the difference between observation and inference’, while the majority of them had expert views on ‘the role of creativity and imagination in science’ at the beginning of the study. The participants were in the transitional phase in terms of ‘subjective NOS’, ‘tentative NOS’ and ‘empirical basis of science’ aspects. The following excerpts illustrate the naive understandings of the participants in the treatment groups on different aspects of the NOS at the beginning of the study. The location of the excerpts is shown in parentheses at the end of the sentences. The first indicator in parentheses refers to the focused aspect of the NOS; the second one is for the participant number; the third indicator refers to the measurement from which the excerpts are drawn, while the fourth indicator shows the question number in VNOS-C: An experiment is required [for the development of scientific knowledge] because absoluteness of knowledge can only be provided by experiments. (One method myth in science, St 16, Pre- VNOS-C, Q3) A scientific theory is a form of unproven event while a law is about an unchanging event (everybody accepts it). (Hierarchy between law and theory, St 23, Pre- VNOS-C, Q5) Scientists use microscope to prove these [the structure of the atom]. By this way, everybody can see it [the atom]. (The difference between observation and inference, St 11, Pre- VNOS-C, Q6) Laws are universal and they are not tentative anywhere, but a theory can be changed and cannot be believed in different places. (Tentativeness, St 2, Pre- interview) [Religion and philosophy] do not use evidence. But observation is included in them. For example, there are religions and philosophies which can transfer different ideas and applications by observing

other religions. (Empirical basis of science, St 2, Pre- interview) [Creativity and imagination] are not used. In experiments and research, creativity does not take place. In research and experiments, there is a result and this result is fixed and objective whatever you make by creativity and imagination. (Creativity and imagination in science, St 15, Pre- VNOS-C, Q10) If two researchers who used the same data, but reached different results exist, one of them failed. One of the results will be eliminated over time. (Subjectivity, St 11, Pre- VNOS-C, Q8)

The post-measurement results have shown that the EER instruction increased the understandings of academically advanced science students on certain aspects of the NOS. In spite of the existence of naive understandings in the majority of the participants on ‘scientific methods’ and ‘laws and theories’ aspects, the majority of the participants gained expert views on ‘the role of creativity and imagination in science’, ‘tentative NOS’, ‘subjective NOS’ and ‘empirical basis of science’. At the same time, the majority of the participants’ understandings on ‘the difference between observation and inference’ changed from naive to transitional. Moreover, the number of the participants categorised as naive on ‘the existence of one method in science’ and ‘no hierarchy between law and theory’ aspects decreased. The following excerpts illustrate the expert view of the participants in the treatment groups on different aspects of NOS at the end of the study: Science is a way of knowing. It is based on experiments and evidence. Its difference from religion and philosophy is that it has an evidence-based nature. Religion and philosophy are based on personal beliefs. (Empirical basis of science, St2, PostVNOS-C, Q1) Scientists use their creativity and imagination. If they did not use their creativity and imagination, they would reach the same results. But atom models were established and designed as different models. (Creativity and imagination in science, St24, PostVNOS-C, Q10) The development of scientific knowledge requires being proven by different methods. Experiment is one method among them; there are other methods to produce scientific knowledge. (One method myth in science, St19, Post- VNOS-C, Q10) [To make the definition of species], making observations is not enough. Both observation and inference are required to do such a definition. (The difference between inference and observation, St12, Postinterview)

217

7 14 75 4 0 82 18 0

0 11 83 6

0 9 77 14

Expert Transitional Naive Not Applied Comparison Group (N=22) Expert Transitional Naive Not Applied

Post %

Pre %

One Method in Science

Explicit-embedded-reflective Group (N=47)

Group

0 9 91 0

0 2 96 2

Pre %

9 18 73 0

23 16 43 18

Post %

No Hierarchy Between Theory And Law

0 36 50 14

0 38 58 4

Pre %

0 41 45 14

14 50 34 2

Post %

Difference Between Observation and Inference

18 73 9 0

15 66 19 0

Pre %

60 27 9 4

64 36 0 0

Post %

Subjectivity in Science

Targeted NOS Aspects

50 46 4 0

42 33 21 4

Pre %

73 27 0 0

89 11 0 0

Post %

Creativity and Imagination in Science

23 63 14 0

30 68 2 0

Pre %

45 50 4 0

84 14 2 0

Post %

Tentative NOS

0 68 18 14

26 42 26 6

Pre %

41 50 9 0

59 23 16 2

Post %

Empirical Basis of Science

Table 2. Percentages of pre- and post-instruction expert, transitional and naive views of the target NOS aspects for the explicit-embedded-reflective group and comparison group participants

Downloaded by [Inonu Universitesi] at 02:56 05 January 2016 218 M.S. KOKSAL ET AL. ______________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________ RESEARCH PAPER Scientists have different personalities. They have different educational backgrounds. Therefore, they comment on the same data differently. (Subjectivity, St6, Post- VNOS-C, Q8) None of the accepted theories have remained the same over time because we are changing knowledge we have learned before by adding something to it. So, theories are tentative. Laws are also tentative. (Tentativeness, St12, Post- interview)


In fact, there is no hierarchy between theories and laws in terms of priority. They have different meanings. (The hierarchy between theories and laws, St1, Post- VNOS-C, Q5)

In the comparison group in which the instruction based on lecturing, demonstration and questioning was applied, the majority of the participants gained expert views on only ‘subjective NOS’ and the majority of the participants had naive views on ‘the difference between observation and inference’ and ‘laws and theories’ aspects. Moreover, although the majority of the participants’ understandings on ‘the existence of scientific methods’ changed from naive to transitional, there is no expert view on this aspect. For the aspect of ‘empirical basis of science’, the views of the majority of the participants were still in the category of ‘transitional’. Table 2 also shows that the participants’ views on aspects of the NOS in the treatment groups are more categorised into the ‘expert’ category after the intervention. Furthermore, all increases in expert views from pre-questionnaire application to post-questionnaire application are higher in the treatment group than those of in the comparison group except for the aspect of ‘empirical basis of science’.

Discussion The results have shown that at the beginning of the study, the participants in both the treatment groups and the comparison group had naive views about ‘the existence of scientific methods’, ‘definitions and status of laws and theories’ and ‘the difference between observation and inference’, while the majority of them had expert views on ‘the role of creativity and imagination in science’. This finding is evidence for the similarity between the groups in terms of NOS understandings at the beginning of the study. Previous studies in the literature have shown similar results. For example, after working with 29 Taiwanese gifted students at junior high school level, Liu and Lederman (2002) reported that the majority of the gifted students had a basic understanding of tentative, subjective and empirical NOS, while 24 of them naively understood that law is correct and exists forever. But Liu and Lederman have stated that their study might have been affected by an internal

validity threat (ceiling effect). Similarly, Koksal and Sormunen’s (2009) study with 16 academically advanced science students showed that the majority of the students were found to be naive in such aspects as ‘observation and inference’ and ‘theories and laws’, whereas the majority of them were experts in the aspects of ‘tentativeness’ and ‘subjectivity’. These misunderstandings might be rooted from different resources including teachers and textbooks (McComas 2003; Abd-El-Khalick et al. 2008; Chiapetta and Fillman 2007; Irez 2009). Although the studies presented above are related to advanced students, they are not experimental studies including a comparison group. This study contributes to the literature by involving a comparison group and focusing on advanced science students. The findings presented in the literature on advanced science students’ NOS understandings are indications of an important problem because advanced science students have sufficient science knowledge, but do not have enough knowledge about the nature of scientific knowledge, scientific methods and scientific process, hence it can be predicted that they cannot use scientific knowledge appropriately in decision making on science. In fact, they cannot use science content knowledge for their life unless they learn about aspects of the NOS. In this study, the activities give the students an opportunity to combine aspects of the NOS with science content related to the nominal literacy component of scientific literacy. This might provide a basis for future decision making situations. In line with this idea, Bell et al. (2011) showed that connecting the nature of science with science content contributed to decision making on socio-scientific issues. After the treatment, the participants in the treatment groups improved their understandings of aspects of the NOS. The majority of the participants gained expert views on ‘the role of creativity and imagination in science’, ‘tentative NOS’, ‘subjective NOS’ and ‘empirical basis of science’, whereas they had naive understandings of ‘the existence of one method in science’ and ‘laws and theories’. Similar results on the effectiveness of the EER on NOS understandings of students have also been reported by different researchers. For example, Khishfe and Lederman (2007) conducted a study with 129 ninth, tenth and eleventh graders to investigate the effectiveness of explicit integrated (embedded) and non-integrated NOS instructions in changing naive NOS ideas. They indicated the effectiveness of explicit-reflective instruction. Moreover, they also showed that integrated instruction is more effective in the change than the other for environmental issues and some aspects in biology although they stated that the result does not have any practical importance. In another study, Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002) compared the relative

219


220

M.S. KOKSAL ET AL. ______________________________________________________________________________________________

effectiveness of implicit inquiry and explicit-reflective NOS instruction in changing sixth-grade students’ misunderstandings. According to the result of this study, explicit-reflective instruction is quite effective in the improvement of the four focused NOS aspects including tentativeness, creativeness, the distinction between observation and inference, and empirical nature of science. It can be concluded that explicitness and reflection components of NOS teaching offer awareness of aspects of the NOS as learning content like science content knowledge. However, these components are not enough to connect NOS understandings to content knowledge. Therefore, an embedding component should be added to the NOS teaching in similar way to this study. In this way, the relationship between the NOS understandings and science content might be established as a requirement for decision-making situations. Khishfe and Lederman (2006) also studied on integrated (embedded) and non-integrated explicit-reflective NOS instruction. The context for embedding was global warming. They found that the majority of the students held naive understandings about the aspects of subjectivity, tentativeness, creativeness, the distinction between observation and inference, and empirically based NOS before the treatment. They reported that at the end of the study, both the students in the integrated and non-integrated groups changed their misunderstandings. Inferring NOS knowledge from a lecture or content teaching needs additional effort and learning about the aspects without connecting them to the related science content might be one reason for weak learning about aspects of the NOS in the comparison group. Different from previous studies which include one-group studies, setting certain NOS objectives and evaluating them, embedding NOS aspects into the content, clearly emphasising NOS teaching, providing explanations on aspects of the NOS and making reflections were provided in this study. They are the components of EER instruction that are different from the components of the teaching in comparison group. Therefore, awareness of learning aspects of the NOS, embedding aspects of the NOS in the content and using reflection might have scaffolded learning NOS and related it to science content associated with different aspects of life. After the implementation in the comparison group, the results have shown that the NOS teaching based on lecturing, demonstration and questioning is slightly effective to increase understandings of academically advanced science students on certain NOS aspects. The majority of the participants gained expert views only on ‘subjective NOS’. Furthermore, none of the participants’ understandings on ‘existence of scientific methods’ were expert. For the aspect of ‘empirical basis of science’, the majority of the participants were still at the category of ‘transitional’. The

increase in NOS understandings might be explained by observation results. Observation results showed that comparison group students experienced active participation in learning NOS (note taking, asking questions, making discussions and explanations) and they were exposed to NOS teaching in a certain class time as similar to treatment group students. These components might have provided benefits to increase NOS understandings of the students. In addition, reflection and embedding activities are not included in the teaching way (lecturing, demonstration and questioning) applied in the comparison group. The literature has shown that explicitness, reflection and embedding are the three important activities in changing NOS understandings (Khishfe and Abd-ElKhalick 2002; Khishfe and Lederman 2006, 2007). It is seen that it is not enough to establish an effective increase in the understandings of advanced science students since the teaching method based on lecturing, demonstration and questioning does not include any intentional planning, application and reflection phases on NOS aspects. The results have shown that the understandings of the participants in the treatment groups on aspects of the NOS were categorised more into the ‘expert’ category in all post-questionnaire results. Moreover, all increases in expert views from pre-questionnaire application to post-questionnaire application were higher in the treatment groups than in the comparison group except for the aspect of ‘empirical basis of science’. The result on the ‘empirical basis of science’ aspect might be related to ‘no categorisation’ for 14 participants from the comparison group in the preapplication of questionnaire. These participants might be ‘expert’ at the beginning of the study since 26% of the students in the treatment groups were experts while there was no ‘expert’ in the comparison group at the beginning of the study. Therefore, the effectiveness of the approach in the aspect of ‘empirical basis of science’ was not evaluated effectively due to the higher rate of ‘Not Applicable’ category for the pre-application results on VNOS-C. The results have shown that the EER approach is more effective on changing misunderstandings of academically advanced science students than teaching way based on lecturing, demonstration and questioning. There are some other studies supporting the results of the present study (Bell, Matkins and Gansneder 2011; Khishfe and Lederman 2006, 2007; Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 2002). The results have also indicated that reflection for comparing previous and current understandings, embedding aspects of the NOS into the content and explicitly planning and teaching aspects of the NOS in the context of cell and cellular organisation unit are the effective components of the approach. These data indicated that the use of EER instruction including explicitness, reflection and embedding provided more advantages in changing NOS understandings than

____________________________________________________________________________ RESEARCH PAPER instruction with no such components. Especially, reflection is effective in developing epistemic thinking and thinking ability (King and Kitchener 2004).


Conclusion The results of the study indicated that the most preferrred teaching approach (lecturing, demonstration and questioning) used in biology education in Turkish science high schools is not enough to make academically advanced science students gain expert understandings on aspects of the NOS. In spite of the sophisticated science content knowledge of advanced science students, their NOS understandings are not sophisticated enough to use this knowledge in their future science-related decision-making. To overcome this problem, the results of this study have shown that the EER-based NOS instruction is an effective approach for teaching NOS aspects to advanced science students. The experimental nature of the study also provides the opportunity for inferring a cause–effect relationship between the treatment and developments in NOS understandings. It might be claimed that the components of the approach such as explicit planning, teaching, embedding and reflection together are an effective cause for changing NOS understandings of advanced science students. As another conclusion drawn from the results, it can be said that the teaching approach (lecturing, demonstration and questioning) used by teachers for biology lessons is partially effective to change NOS understandings of academically advanced science students, but it is not as effective as the EER instruction. The regular approach does not have any component including explicit planning, embedding and reflection. These components can be considered as main factors to change NOS understandings when effectiveness of the treatment group applications including these components is taken into account. The advantages of EER instruction on the regular teaching method have been supported by this study. In conclusion, it might be said that EER instruction is effective to teach aspects of the NOS in the context of advanced biology courses.

Implications The findings of this study are important due to their contribution to the education of academically advanced science students to establish a scientifically literate society. The results of this study on NOS understandings have provided evidence for the efficency of the EER approach; therefore, the applications provided in the study might be used to increase NOS understandings and scientific literacy in advanced high school biology courses. As a result, the applications of this study might be used for pro-

grammes on informed decision-making ability about biology issues in advanced classrooms. For example; the Pandorina study represented here might be used as an example case for developing decision-making activities focusing on ‘the difference between observation and inference’ aspect. As another point, the new Turkish biology curriculum is also in need of NOS activities since there is no clear example of the acitivity of aspects of the NOS in spite of calls for NOS teaching in the curriculum. Also biology teachers do not know where to begin, the activities presented in this study might provide examples to be used as in-class biology activities on the cell and cellular organisation unit. In line with the objectives of the new biology curriculum on aspects of the NOS, the activities and results of this study might also provide a framework for book writers. Especially, ‘the existence of scientific methods’, ‘definitions and status of laws and theories’ and ‘the difference between observation and inference’ aspects might be made more explicit with representing misunderstandings on them in biology books for helping explicit-reflective-embedded instruction. As another implication, the academically advanced science students with their higher achievement on content knowledge might have the opportunity to establish more coordinated and sophisticated science understandings by the help of the approach recommended in this study. These students are in more need of having sophisticated science understandings since they are more likely to make science-related decisions in the future than ordinary students due to their strong tendency to enter a science-related job. These sophisticated understandings might be helpful in their decisions about science-related issues. Based on their improved understandings on NOS and content knowledge, they can evaluate tentativeness of knowledge or whether a claim is scientific or not and can understand multiple ways of producting scientific knowledge rather than following a step-bystep process. The previous studies on EER instruction have included one group pre- and post-measurement applications. The approach used in this study has provided more comparable results on EER instruction with the teaching applications based on lecturing, demonstration and questioning due to involvement of a control group. However, to increase the generalisability of the results of the study, it should be replicated with more academically advanced science students. This study has also provided experimentally comparable results. Therefore, the results of this study will contribute to the existing literature with its experimental nature and importance of the group, academically advanced science students, for science education. The applications provided in the study will also enhance the present activity pool in the

221


222

M.S. KOKSAL ET AL. ______________________________________________________________________________________________

literature. Another important point is that in this study, a non-equivalent groups experimental design was utilised. Therefore, there is a need to conduct this study by using true experimental approaches to control more threats. Based on the results and process of this study, the following recommendations can be made. In this study, discussion activities were conducted in the form of whole class discussion. Future studies should extend the approach by using more effective ways of discussion such as small group discussion or expert– novice discussion. As another important point, uncontrolled sharing and discussion of NOS knowledge between the groups might be a cause of the increase in NOS understandings of the students in the comparison group. Hence, there is a need to consider this probability in future studies. In this study, effectiveness of the approach was not tested for different genders; therefore, future studies should focus on gender variable. In this study, all of aspects of the NOS were taught as separate subjects, but advanced science students should establish connections among the aspects to see their interrelationships. Thus, future studies should try to develop activities including more aspects in the same activity.

Note 1. This study is a part of a PhD study conducted in Middle East Technical University, Natural and Applied Science Institute, Turkey.

References Abd-El-Khalick, F. 1998. “The Influence of History of Science Courses on Students’ Conceptions of Nature of Science.” Doctoral diss., Oregon State University. Abd-El-Khalick, F., and V.L. Akerson. 2009. “The Influence of Metacognitive Training on Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Conceptions of Nature of Science.” International Journal of Science Education 31 (16): 2161–2184. Abd-El-Khalick, F., and N. G. Lederman. 2000. “The Influence of History of Science Courses on Students’ Views of Nature of Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37 (10): 1057–1095. Abd-El-Khalick, F., M. Waters, and A. Le. 1998. “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. Akerson, V. L., C. A. Buzzelli, and L. A. Donnelly. 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. Akerson, V. L., J. A. Morrison, and A. Roth McDuffie. 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. Akerson, V. L., and M. L. Volrich. 2006. “Teaching Nature of Science Explicitly in a First-grade Internship Setting.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 43 (4): 377–394. Allchin, D. 2011. “Evaluating Knowledge of the Nature of (Whole) Science.” Science Education 95 (3): 518–542. Atıcı, T., and N. Bora. 2004. “Suggestions and Evaluation of Teaching Methods that are Used for Biology Education in Secondary Education.” Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Social Sciences 6 (2): 51–64.

Bell, R. L., L. M. Blair, B. A. Crawford, and N. G. Lederman. 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. Bell, R. L., J. J. Matkins, and B. M. Gansneder. 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. Blanco, R., and M. Niaz. 1997. “Epistemological Beliefs of Students and Teachers About the Nature of Science: From ‘Baconian Inductive Ascent’ to the ‘Irrelevance’ of Scientific Laws.” Instructional Science 25 (3): 203–231. Buaraphan, K. 2012. “Embedding Nature of Science in Teaching About Astronomy and Space.” Journal of Science Education and Technology 21 (3): 353–369. Cartier, J. 2000. Using a Modeling Approach to Explore Scientific Epistemology with High School Students. Research report 99–1 for the National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science. http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/ncisla/publications/reports/RR99–1.pdf. Celik, S., and S. Bayrakceken. 2012. “The Influence of an Activity-based Explicit Approach on the Turkish Prospective Science Teachers’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 37 (4): 75–95. Chiapetta, E. L., and D. A. Fillman. 2007. “Analysis of Five High School Biology Textbooks Used in the United States for Inclusion of the Nature of Science.” International Journal of Science Education 29 (15): 1847–1868. Cil, E., and S. Cepni. 2012. “The Effectiveness of the Conceptual Change Approach, Explicit Reflective Approach, and Course Book by the Ministry of Education on the Views of the Nature of Science and Conceptual Change in Light Unit.” Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 12 (2): 1107–1113. Cohen, L., and L. Manion. 1994. Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Damastes, S., and H. J. Wandersee. 1992. “Biological literacy in a College Biology Classroom.” BioScience 42 (1): 63–65. Dogan, N., and F. Abd-El-Khalick. 2008. “Turkish Grade 10 Students’ and Science Teachers’ Conceptions of Nature of Science: A National Study.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45 (10): 1083–1112. Fraenkel, J. R., and N. E. Wallen. 2006. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. 6th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Greavez-Fernandez, N. 2010. “Influence of Views About the Nature of Science in Decision-making About Socio-scientific and Pseudo-scientific Issues.” Doctoral diss., University of York. Irez, S. 2006. “Are We Prepared?: An Assessment of Preservice Science Teacher Educators’ Beliefs About Nature of Science.” Science Education 90 (6): 1113–1143. Irez, S. 2009. “Nature of Science as Depicted in Turkish Biology Textbooks.” Science Education 93 (3): 422–447. Irwin, A. R. 2000. “Historical Case Studies: Teaching the Nature of Science in Context.” Science Education 84 (1): 5–26. Khishfe, R. 2012. “Nature of Science and Decision-making.” International Journal of Science Education 34 (1): 67–100. Khishfe, R., and F. Abd-El-Khalick. 2002. “The 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. Khishfe, R., and N. Lederman. 2006. “Teaching Nature of Science Within a Controversial Topic: Integrated Versus Nonintegrated.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 4 (4): 377–394. Khishfe, R., and N. G. Lederman. 2007. “Relationship Between Instructional Context and Views of Nature of Science.” International Journal of Science Education 29 (8): 939–961. King, P. M., and K. S. Kitchener. 2004. “Reflective Judgment: Theory and Research on the Development of Epistemic Assumptions Through Adulthood.” Educational Psychologist 39 (1): 5–18. Klopfer, L., and W. Cooley. 1963. “Effectiveness of the History of Science Cases for High Schools in the Development of Student Understanding of Science and Scientists.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1: 35–47. Klymkowsky, M. W., K. Garvin-Doxas, and M. Zeilik. 2003. “Bioliteracy and Teaching Efficacy: What Biologists Can Learn From Physicists?” Cell Biology Education 2 (3): 155–161.


____________________________________________________________________________ RESEARCH PAPER Koksal, M. S., and K. Sormunen. 2009. “Advanced Science Students’ Understanding on Nature of Science in Turkey.” A paper presented at European Science Education Research Association 2009 Conference, Istanbul, 31 August–3 September. Ku¨c¸u¨k, M. 1992. “Improving Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Views of the Nature of Science Using Explicit Reflective Teaching in a Science, Technology and Society Course.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 33 (2): 16–40. 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. 1998. “The State of Science Education: Subject Matter Without Context.” Electronic Journal of Science Education 3 (2). http:// www.files.chem.vt.edu/confchem/1998/lederman/lederman.html. Lederman, N. G. 2007. “Nature of Science: Past, Present, and Future.” In Handbook of Research in Science Education, edited by S.K. Abell and N.G. Lederman, 831–879. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum. Lederman, N. G., and F. Abd-El-Khalick.1998. “Avoiding De-natured Science: Activities That Promote Understandings of the Nature of Science”. In W. F. McComas (Eds.). The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and strategies, edited by W. F. McComas, 83–126. Dodrecht: Kluwer. Lederman, N. G., F. Abd-El-Khalick, R. L. Bell, and R. S. Schwartz. “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, N. G., R. S. Schwartz, F. Abd-El-Khalick, and R. L. Bell. 2001. “Pre-service Teachers’ Understanding and Teaching of the Nature of Science: An Intervention Study.” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education 1 (2): 135–160. Lin, H., and C. Chen. 2002. “Promoting Preservice Chemistry Teachers’ Understanding About the Nature of Science Through History.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39 (9): 773–792. Liu, S., and N. Lederman. 2002. “Taiwanese Gifted Students’ Views of Nature of Science.” School Science and Mathematics 102 (3): 114–123. McComas, W. F. 1998. “The Principle Elements of the Nature of Science: Dispelling the Myths.” In The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies, edited by W. F. McComas, 53–70. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. McComas, W. F. 2003. “A Textbook Case of the Nature of Science: Laws and Theories in the Science of Biology.” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 1 (2): 141–155. Meichtry, Y. 1992. “Influencing Students Understanding of the Nature of Science: Data From a Case of Curriculum Development.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29 (4): 389–407. Miller, J. D. 2011. “To Improve Science Literacy, Researchers Should Run for School Board.” Nature Medicine 17 (1). Mullis, V. S. I., M. O. Martin, G. J. Ruddock, C.Y. O’Sullivan, A. Arora, and E. Erberber. 2005. TIMSS 2007 Assessment Frameworks. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Centre, Boston College. OECD/PISA. 2003. PISA 2003 Assessment Framework: Mathematics, Reading, Science and Problem Solving Knowledge and Skills. Paris: OECD. OECD/PISA. 2009. PISA 2009 Assessment Framework: Key Competencies in Reading, Mathematics and Science. Paris: OECD.

Olson, J. K., M. P. Clough, C. N. Bruxvoort, and D. W. Vanderlinden. 2005. “Improving Students’ Nature of Science Understanding Through Historical Short Stories in an Introductory Geology Course.” Paper presented at Eighth International History, Philosophy, Sociology & Science Teaching Conference, University of Leeds, 15–18 July. ¨ zaslan, H., N. Yıldız, and Y. C O ¸ etin. 2009. U¨stu¨n Yetenekli O¨g˘rencilerin Yetenekleri Dıs¸ındaki Mesleklere Yo¨nelme Nedenleri ve Sakıncaları. [Reasons for Tendency of Gifted Students’ Choice of Occupations That are not ¨ stu¨n Yetenekli related to Their Ability and Its Potential Problems]. U C ¸ ocuklar II. Ulusal Kongresi [Second National Congress on Gifted Students]. Anadolu University, Eskis¸ehir, Turkey, 25–27 March. Palmquist, B., and F. Finley. 1997. “Preservice Teachers’ Views of the Nature of Science During a Postbaccalaureate Science Teaching Program.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34 (6): 595–615. Palmquist, B., and F. Finley. 1998. “A Response to Bell, Lederman, and Abd-El-Khalick’s Explicit Comments.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35 (9): 1063–1064. Park, S., and J. S. Oliver. 2009. “The Transition of Teachers’ Understanding of Gifted Students Into Instructional Strategies for Teaching Science.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 20 (4): 333–351. Project 2061. 2007. Retrieved from http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/. Rennie, L. 2005. “Scientific Awareness and Scientific Literacy.” Teaching Science 51 (1): 10–13. Ryan, A. G., and G. S. Aikenhead. 1992. “Students’ Preconceptions About the Epistemology of Science.” Science Education 76 (6): 559–580. Sandoval, W., and K. Morrison. 2003. “High School Students’ Ideas About Theories and Theory Change After a Biological Inquiry Unit.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40 (4): 369–392. Schwartz, R., N. Lederman, R. Khishfe, J. Lederman, L. Matthews, and S. Liu. 2002. “Explicit/Reflective Instructional Attention to Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry: Impact on Student Learning.” Paper presented at the annual international conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science (AETS), Charlotte, NC, 10–13 January. Schwartz, R., N. G. Lederman, and F. Abd-El-Khalick. 2012. “A Series of Misrepresentations: A Response to Allchin’s Approach to Assessing Nature of Science Understandings.” Science Education 96 (4): 685–692. Tsai, C. 2006a. “Reinterpreting and Reconstructing Science: Teachers’ View Changes Towards the Nature of Science by Courses of Science Education.” Teaching and Teacher Education 22: 363–375. Tsai, C. 2006b. “Biological Knowledge is More Tentative Than Physics Knowledge: Taiwan High School .Adolescents’ Views About the Nature of Biology and Physics.” Adolescence (San Diego): An International Quarterly Devoted to the Physiological, Psychological, Psychiatric, Sociological, and Educational Aspects of the Second Decade of Human Life 41 (164): 691–703. Turkish Ninth Grade Biology Curriculum. 2007. Turkish Ministry of Education. Turkey: Ankara. Turkish Ministry of Education. 2007. “2007 OKS istatistikleri. [2007 OKS statistics].” http://oks2007.meb.gov.tr/oks_ista.htm#2. Uno, G. E., and R. W. Bybee. 1994. “Understanding the Dimensions of Biological Literacy.” BioScience 44 (8): 553–557. Welch, W., and H. Walberg. 1972. “A National Experiment in Curriculum Evaluation.” American Educational Research Journal 9: 373–383.

223