Research in Science & Technological Education

Vol. 24, No. 2, November 2006, pp. 255–273

The effect of a ‘Science, Technology and

Society’ course on prospective teachers’
conceptions of the nature of science
Suat Celik* and Samih Bayrakçeken
Atatürk University, Turkey
24
Taylor
2006
[email protected]
Research
10.1080/02635140600811692
CRST_A_181111.sgm
0263-5143
20Original
SuatCelik
00000November
&
and
Article
in
Francis
(print)/1470-1138
Francis
Science2006
Ltd
& Technological
(online) Education

The aim of this study is to assess prospective teachers’ views of some aspects of the nature of science
(NOS) and the effects of a “Science, Technology and Society” (STS) course embedded with scien-
tific investigation (SI) on these views. A questionnaire consisting of 13 items was given to 212
prospective teachers enrolled in a STS course before and after teaching. During the semester,
participants were engaged in a specially designed pilot SI combined with explicit NOS instruction.
Majority of the participants held traditional views of the target NOS aspects at beginning of the
study. After the course there were significant changes in the conceptions of prospective teachers in
majority target aspects of NOS as the results of a Sign test indicate. We suggest that the more suit-
able SI, performed in an active learning environment, related to target aspects of NOS must be
selected to develop the more constructivist views about the NOS.

Introduction
Teachers are the most important factor in promoting scientific literacy. Therefore,
they must be well prepared in science subjects. In addition, they must have a firm
understanding of science and be abreast of the current technological advances
affecting society every day (American Association for the Advancement of Science,
1993; National Research Council, 1996; Tairab, 2001). Since the teacher is the
most important individual in the education of society and in ensuring the scientific
literacy of students, much research has been conducted to investigate whether
teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science (NOS) are adequate (Lederman,
1986; Abell & Smith, 1994; Palmquist & Finley, 1997; Haidar, 1999; Abell et al.,
2001).

*Corresponding author. Atatürk University, Kazım Karabekir Education Faculty, Department of

Secondary Science and Mathematics Education, 25240–Erzurum, Turkey. Email:
[email protected]

ISSN 0263-5143 (print)/ISSN 1470-1138 (online)/06/020255–19

© 2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/02635140600811692
256 S. Celik and S. Bayrakçeken

While previous research has shown that teachers’ understanding of NOS does not
directly translate into classroom practice, it is also obvious that teachers cannot
present or assess information they do not possess (Lederman, 1992, 1999).
It is generally accepted that the most important goal of science education for all
teachers is scientific literacy and understanding of the nature of science. Scientific
literacy involves understanding not only scientific knowledge, but also the nature of
science (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National
Research Council, 1996). Thus, teachers are needed to understand NOS so as to
improve the scientific literacy of their students (Lederman, 1992; Murcia & Schibeci,
1999).
The nature of science has been used as a terminology in the literature (Klopfer &
Cooley, 1963; Kimball, 1968). NOS includes characteristics of science such as
empirically based, tentative, subjective, creative, unified, and cultural and socially
embedded. Individuals who understand NOS can recognize the functions and
distinguish among observations, inferences, scientific facts, laws, hypotheses and
theories (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993). According to
Meichtry (1999), possessing accurate views about NOS and scientific knowledge
contributes to people’s scientific literacy in a number of ways.
Science educators and researchers have defined scientific literacy in at least seven
dimensions (Rubba & Anderson, 1978).
The scientific-literate person:
● understands the nature of scientific knowledge;
● accurately applies appropriate science concepts, principles, laws and the theories
in interacting with his/her universe;
● uses processes of science in solving problems, making decisions and furthering his/
her own understanding of the universe;
● interacts with the various aspects of his/her universe in a way that is consistent with
values that underlie science;
● understands and appreciates the joint enterprises of science and technology and
the interrelationships of these with each other and with other aspects of society;
● has developed a richer, more satisfying and more exciting view of the universe as a
result of his/her science education and continues to extend this education through-
out his/her life;
● has developed numerous manipulative skills associated with science technology.
Educating for scientific literacy certainly entails not only teaching facts and
theories but learning about the nature of these concepts and how they function in
relation to other beliefs about the physical world as well. But, science is typically
taught as a set of facts and theories handed down to us by scientists (Eichinger
et al., 1997).
The nature of scientific knowledge has been usually presented in six dimensions:
(a) amoral (scientific knowledge itself cannot be judged as morally good or bad); (b)
creative (scientific knowledge is partially a product of human creativity); (c) develop-
mental (scientific knowledge is tentative); (d) parsimonious (scientific knowledge
 Prospective teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science 257

attempts to achieve simplicity of explanation as opposed to complexity); (e) testable

(scientific knowledge is capable of empirical testing); (f) unified (the specialized
sciences contribute to an interrelated network of laws, theories and concepts) (Rubba
& Anderson, 1978; Lederman, 1986; Yildirim, 2000; Lederman & Lederman, 2004).
These dimensions are consistent with views expressed by the American Association
for the Advancement of Science (1993).
Research has consistently shown that students and teachers hold traditional
views about several important aspects of NOS, including the dimensions of scien-
tific knowledge (Haidar, 1999; Tsai, 1999; Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002;
Treagust et al., 2002). Hence, it is recommended that teacher education programs
need to discuss a variety of conflicting conceptions of science for pre-service
science teachers. Developing teachers’ views about constructivist NOS may be an
essential component of teacher training programs. But the issue must be how to
change teachers’ traditional views about the nature of science. Abd-El-Khalick and
Lederman (2000a) have proposed ways of improving teachers’ views about NOS,
including implicit and explicit approaches. However, the implicit approach uses
only science-based inquiry activities; the explicit approach utilizes both science-
based inquiry, elements from history and philosophy of science, and discussions on
these issues in the instructional process. Previous studies have indicated that the
explicit approach is more effective than the implicit approach for the reason that
most students do not learn NOS implicitly simply by doing science activities
(Akerson et al., 2000; Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002; Lederman & Lederman,
2004).
Previous studies have indicated that large percentages of teachers and students
hold traditional views about the nature of science and technology and their interac-
tions within society. Examples of these traditional views are: conceptualizing science
as a body of knowledge or as a field which is the same as physics, chemistry and
biology; visualizing scientific hypotheses, theories and laws in a developmental
sequence; and not distinguishing between science and technology (Abell & Smith,
1994; Griffiths & Barman, 1995; Mellado, 1997; Eick, 2000). Other studies (e.g.
Lederman, 1992; Niaz & Rodríguez, 2001) emphasized that a sequence among
scientific hypotheses, theories and laws does not exist, as in the case of Boyle’s law,
which was constructed after molecular kinetic theory.
Teacher training programs in Turkey mostly focus on teaching about facts and
theories. The Science, Technology and Society (STS) course in teacher training
programs in Turkey aims at teaching the nature of science and helping teachers to
gain scientific literacy. Research suggests that future teachers must be helped to learn
how to teach science through new lenses; they must appreciate how children learn
science and how scientists construct scientific knowledge in order to promote the
scientific literacy of their students (Meichtry, 1993; Abd-El-Khalick et al., 1998;
Murcia & Schibeci, 1999; Schibeci & Murcia, 1999). In another study, Mellado
(1997) states that teachers’ content knowledge has to include not only facts and
concepts but also the structure of discipline, its evolution, theoretical framework and
some knowledge of history and philosophy of science.
258 S. Celik and S. Bayrakçeken

Craven III and Penick (2001) suggested the following actions for students in
teacher education programs to develop constructivist views about NOS:
1. Exploring their personal beliefs and ideas about teaching, education, the nature
of science and the nature of knowledge.
2. Writing a research-based rationale paper.
3. Expressing and defending their views on science teaching and learning in profes-
sional development programs.
4. Conducting action research projects that require them to articulate and test their
ideas on teaching and learning.
5. Engaging in scientific inquiry (SI) to develop implicit and explicit understandings
on the nature of science.
Contemporary work in physics, philosophy of science, and education has challenged
fundamental beliefs and traditional views and has provided enough ground to
establish what is known today as the constructivist view. The universe is perceived
differently by the constructivist view of science. It suggests that we can no longer
observe, know and predict the universe with absolute objectivity. Our observation is
theory laden, so what we observe is influenced by theories we have. The basic beliefs
of this view are the following: science is viewed as a set of socially negotiated
understandings of the universe; knowledge is accepted if deemed viable by the
scientific community; in addition to ‘scientific method’, there are other ways to gain
scientific knowledge; scientists are influenced by prior knowledge, social factors and
other influences; and scientific knowledge is intuitive and tentative. On the other
hand the basic beliefs of the traditional view of science are the following: we can
observe, know and predict the inner workings of the universe from an objective
position; the only way to gain scientific knowledge is through the application of the
induction method; scientists are absolutely objective free from theories that they have;
scientific knowledge is absolute and devoid of creativity and scientists’ imaginations
(Kuhn, 1970; Yildirim, 2000).
The term ‘nature of science’ typically refers to the epistemology of science, science
as a way of knowing or the values and beliefs inherited in the development of scientific
knowledge (Lederman, 1992). But generally, scientists and science educators are not
in agreement on a specific definition of NOS (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 1998). Like
scientific knowledge, conceptions of NOS are dynamic and have changed through the
development of science and systematic thinking about science. Despite this disagree-
ment, there is a shared opinion about NOS which has difficulty in rejecting the
theory-laden nature of scientific observations, or in defending traditional conceptions
of NOS in our century (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 1998, 2000b).
In the present study we focused on the following topics (listed in Table 3 in the
‘Results and Discussions’ section): what is science?; scientific assumptions; scientific
laws; scientific hypothesis; scientific theories; the attributes of scientists; differences
between female and male scientists; scientific models; relationship among hypotheses,
theories and laws; scientific methods; consensus making in science and characteristics
of the knowledge produced in science.
 Prospective teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science 259

Purpose and significance

Several studies have been reported on teachers’ and students’ understanding of NOS
and determining the effect of various courses, approaches and instruction on these
understandings (Hammrich, 1997; Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000a; Akerson
et al., 2000; Abd-El-Khalick, 2001; Lin & Chen, 2002; Sandoval & Morrison, 2003).
Most of these studies have focused on the effect of history of science instructions to
improve teachers’ conceptions of NOS (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000a; Lin &
Chen, 2002; Dass, 2005). Moreover, Lee (1997) stated that there is little systematic
research on effective strategies, practices, programs or policies about NOS and scien-
tific literacy for students from diverse cultures and languages. There is also no
research which uses empirically developed instruments to investigate the effect of an
STS course embedded with SI on these understandings. Rubba and Harkness (1993)
suggested an STS course that focuses particularly on the nature of science and tech-
nology and their interactions within society, among other topics, to help science
teachers develop these understandings.
The purpose of this investigation is to determine prospective teachers’ conceptions
of NOS, to make it clear whether these conceptions are traditional or constructivist
and to investigate the effect of an STS course embedded with SI which is taught in
education faculties, on prospective teachers’ understanding of NOS. It was expected
that this study would provide further insights into prospective teachers’ conceptions
of NOS and would help to construct instructions to improve teachers’ and students’
conceptions of NOS. For this reason, two research questions were outlined as follows:
1. What kind of conceptions about the nature of science do teachers hold?
2. Has the STS course embedded with SI affected these conceptions in a positive
way?

Method
Sample
The subjects of this study consisted of a total of 213 prospective teachers, 108 male
and 105 female, selected from three classes from the Department of Primary Teacher
Training and one class from the Department of Primary Science Teacher Training
and taught by the second author, who is a science education professor (see Table 1).
While the prospective primary science teachers have a more scientific background,
prospective primary teachers have a mixed science and social science background. All
of them were in their final (fourth) year of a Bachelor’s degree. All of the prospective
teachers who participated in this study opted to take the ‘Science, Technology and
Society’ course in the autumn semester of the academic year 2002–2003.

Content of STS course

The study was undertaken in the context of the aforementioned STS course. This
course was taught for three hours per week for the Department of Primary Science
260 S. Celik and S. Bayrakçeken

Table 1. The distribution of the 213 participants according to departments and classes

Department of Primary Teacher Department of Primary Science

Training Teacher Training

Class A Class B Class C Class A

65 55 49 44

Teacher Training and two hours for the Department of Primary Teacher Training
and spanned 14 weeks. This course is offered to all departments of primary teacher
training and primary science teacher training. The course aims to help prospective
teachers develop: (a) constructivist views about NOS; (b) scientific process skills; (c)
science, technology and society interactions; (d) favourable attitudes toward science,
technology and science teaching; and (e) a repertoire of methods for teaching science.
In this study, we particularly investigated prospective teachers’ conceptions about the
aforementioned dimensions of NOS.
An outline of the course is given in Table 2.
The reason for selecting SI activities is that the nature of science can be taught
through engaging students in science. It was assumed that science literacy character-
istics are not taught directly but are embedded in the curriculum where students are
engaged in resolving problems, doing investigations or developing projects (Hurd,
1998).
In the STS course prospective teachers engaged in SI activities which are examples
of qualitative and quantitative methods, ranging from descriptive to experimental in
nature. This gave prospective teachers opportunities to question their conceptions
about NOS.
Moreover, it is thought that to change students’ views of NOS, both epistemic and
epistemological practices should be incorporated. While in epistemological practices
students engage in questioning their understanding about what theories are and what
they are for, in epistemic practices they engage in testing alternative hypotheses to
evaluate theories and build new theories (Sandoval & Morrison, 2003). Without such
experiences, future teachers are unlikely to develop understandings about the nature
of science and SI, understandings that make current science education reform efforts
unique compared with those of the past (Lederman & Niess, 1997; Abd-El-Khalick
& Lederman, 2000a).
At the outset of the semester, all participants involved in each class were divided
into 10 groups consisting of four, five or six students. One of the SI activities was
given to each group to investigate. The SI activities were purposely selected to include
examples of social science and basic science investigation. Schibeci and Murcia
(1999) state that students must do some science if they are to become scientifically
literate. The SI activities were intended to provide participants with scientific skills
and deeper understandings about aspects of NOS.
During the first two weeks of the course, the instructors engaged participants in
detailed descriptions of the SI method, which included development of a research
 Prospective teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science 261

Table 2. Course outline

Week Title of Subject

1 Definition of the course

2 Basic Concepts
3 Science and other Disciplines
4 Characteristics of Science
5 Traditional and Constructivist Science Paradigms
6 The Important Concepts of Science (Phenomena, Hypothesis, Theory and Law)
7 Results of Science (Moral, Intellectual and Practical)
8 Characteristics of a Scientifically Literate Person
9 The Role of Science Teacher and Science Instruction in Training Scientifically Literate
Persons
10 Science, Technology and Society Interaction
11 Students’ Conceptions of Science and Scientists
12 Influence of Science and Technology on Quality of Education
13 Science, Technology and Environment Problems
14 General Evolution of the Course

Week Titles of Scientific Inquiries

1 Reasons for abandoning school and solutions

2 Students’ conceptions of scientific theory
3 Problems of the school in which you are training and implications of these problems
4 Comparison of heat transfer capabilities of cotton, wool and linen
5 Reasons for cheating by university students
6 Elementary students’ conceptions of science and scientists
7 Which teaching method is effective for teaching the subject ‘matter and energy’?
8 How is science being presented in newspapers?
9 How do science and technology influence countries’ development?
10 What are the characteristics of an effective teacher?

question, formulation of a hypothesis, the interpretation of results and the drawing of

conclusions based on their results. After two weeks, in the first two hours of the
course, instructors presented the subject of the week and groups presented their SI
report to the whole class in the remaining hour through the semester in sequence.
Each presentation of the SI report was followed by a whole-class discussion with the
aim of emphasizing the target aspects of NOS and involved students in discourse
concerning the SI presented with the help of the instructor. These target aspects of
NOS are also emphasized in science reform documents (e.g. American Association
for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National Research Council, 1996) to under-
stand the nature of science viewed as the most important component of scientific
literacy. This instruction sequence was intended to get students to think about and
reflect on different issues related to NOS. In this instruction, we used probe questions
to provide participants with opportunities to clarify their beliefs about NOS. In
262 S. Celik and S. Bayrakçeken

addition to verbal discussions, each group was required to write a report in which they
described their SI activity.
As explained in the literature, this course can be considered as both explicit and
implicit (Tsai, 1999; Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002). Various teaching
approaches and activities have been integrated in this course to help prospective
teachers develop constructivist views about the nature of science and scientific
knowledge. Teaching approaches used for this purpose include: (a) learning cycle
lessons taught to participants; (b) design and implementation of SI, sharing of results
with participants and a written research report; (c) classroom discussion after sharing
results with participants about target NOS aspects; and d) a quiz about aspects of
NOS.
The course has the following characteristics:
● student centred;
● inquiry-based activities;
● freedom to ask questions;
● enthusiasm, encouragement and peer group discussions.

Data collection instrument

Thirteen items which deal with target NOS aspects were chosen out of 114 items of
VOSTS (Views of Science, Technology and Society) developed by Aikenhead et al.
(1989). With the help of the professor, we identified four sections consisting of 13
items (from among nine that comprise the complete item pool) as appropriate for
testing STS course outcomes. These four sections are: Science and Technology,
Characteristics of Scientist, Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge, and Nature
of Scientific Knowledge. The items used in this study were translated into Turkish
with the contribution of experts in the Turkish and English languages and then test
items were administered as a pilot to 20 prospective teachers to determine translation
errors and time required for test completion. After the pilot, revisions were made. The
original selected items’ stems are given in the Appendix.
Aikenhead and Ryan (1992) argue that it is inappropriate to speak about the reli-
ability and validity of an empirically developed instrument in the traditional sense
because reliability and validity of an empirically developed instrument arise from the
qualitative paradigm. Furthermore, they state that an empirically developed instru-
ment seeks to uncover the perspective of the respondent and reveal the legitimacy of
the perspective from the respondent’s point of view, not from the viewpoint imposed
by the researcher. Further, they argue that the validity of an empirically developed
instrument is established by the ‘trustworthiness’ of the method used to develop the
item. We assumed that the VOSTS items possessed an inherent validity that origi-
nated from the process used to develop them (Aikenhead & Ryan, 1992). Moreover,
Ryan and Aikenhead (1992) stated that data gained from VOSTS can be useful to
design science lessons and to assess students’ views on a wide variety of STS topics
related to the nature of science.
 Prospective teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science 263

The test was administered to 213 prospective teachers before and after teaching to
determine changes in their conceptions of NOS.

Data analysis
In order to address the research questions, a combination of quantitative and quali-
tative data analysis approaches was used. In the descriptive analysis for the second
research question, a nonparametric two-related-sample Sign test was carried out.
Rubba et al. (1996) pointed out that descriptive procedure which allows inferential
statistics to VOSTS data should not be used alone. They have warned that while
such procedures can contribute to the interpretation of VOSTS data, they are not a
substitute for in-depth descriptive analysis of VOSTS item findings. In order to
address the first research question, a qualitative approach was also used. In this
study, a special three-category scoring scheme was used, as developed by Rubba
et al. (1996), in which alternatives for each VOSTS item were categorized under
three categories as ‘naive’, ‘has merit’ and ‘realistic’. According to this scoring
procedure, ‘Realistic’ means the choice expressed an appropriate view, ‘HM/Has
Merit’ means while not realistic, the choice expressed a number of legitimate points,
and ‘n/naive’ means the choice expressed a view that is inappropriate or not legiti-
mate. This scoring framework was used in several studies such as Rubba and Hark-
ness (1993), Rubba et al. (1996) and Dass (2005) to assess students’ conceptions
about NOS.
The original questionnaire items’ alternatives were recoded from alphabetical to
numerical, consistent with the aforementioned three-category system for descriptive
statistics. The three-response categories were scored according to the following
numerical values: R: 3, HM: 2, N: 1. The ordinal data resulting from this categoriza-
tion of response choices and subsequent numerical scoring lent itself to inferential
statistical analysis for examining trends in individual items between assessments over
time (pre-tests and post-tests).
Alternatives provided in each VOSTS item were classified into categories based on
the Ryan and Aikenhead (1992) study for in-depth descriptive analysis of items’ find-
ings. These categories were different for each VOSTS item. The alternatives that do
not fit any of these categories are called ‘Other’ (see Table 4). The interpretation of
the results is carried out based on frameworks, namely ‘worldly’ and ‘logical positiv-
ism’ suggested by Ryan and Aikenhead (1992), and ‘constructivist beliefs’ and ‘tradi-
tional beliefs’ suggested by Haidar (1999).

Results and discussions

Findings of the study are presented in two sections. Firstly the Sign test results, which
deal with the second research question, are presented. After this, interpretive-
descriptive data analysis results are presented.
In the descriptive approach, the null hypothesis, H0—the difference in VOSTS
item response categories (R/HM/N) from pre-test to post-test within the treatment
264 S. Celik and S. Bayrakçeken

population was not asymmetrical (equal number of positive and negative differ-
ences)—was tested against the alternate hypothesis, H1—the difference in VOSTS
item response categories (R/HM/N) from pre-test to post-test within the treatment
population was asymmetrical in favour of positive differences (more positive
differences than negative differences). In other words, a one-tailed test was used to
determine whether or not participation in the STS course had a positive influence
on student understanding of various aspects of NOS. The null hypothesis was
rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis for those items in which positive
differences in response categories (R/HM/N) from pre-test to post-test turned out to
be significant at 0.05 level (significantly more positive differences than negative
differences).
The categorization of the prospective teachers’ responses to the questionnaire is
given in Table 4. When the VOSTS items’ alternatives are interpreted in the light of
related literature, it can be said that ‘realistic’ and ‘has merit’ are consistent with the
constructivist view and ‘naive’ consistent with the traditional view. While, at the
beginning of the study, most of the participants held traditional views about the target
NOS aspects except for views about the characteristic of scientific knowledge and
attributes of scientists, many participants seemed to have shifted from a traditional to
a constructivist view of NOS, after the course. Several favourable changes were
evident in participants’ views about some aspects of NOS at the end of the course, as
also indicated in the quantitative approach analysis.
The results show that prospective teachers’ views about the nature of science gener-
ally presented two relatively vague views: content and process, before and after the
STS course. While there is an increase in the view that ‘science is inventing’, the view
that ‘science is exploring the unknown’ decreased after the course. In addition, the

Table 3. Summary of the results of the Sign test on VOSTS data

Negative Positive Test statistic

Item Total N differences differences Ties result

1 213 65 29 119 .000

2 212 18 75 119 .000*
3 213 34 80 99 .000*
4 213 32 84 97 .000*
5 213 34 95 84 .000*
6 213 40 56 117 0.126
7 213 15 24 174 0.200
8 212 22 46 144 .005*
9 212 12 61 139 .000*
10 213 27 71 115 .000*
11 212 42 97 73 .000*
12 211 42 66 103 0.027*
13 210 17 32 161 0.046*

*P < 0.05
 Prospective teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science 265

Table 4. Percentages of respondents’ views in questionnaire

Prospective Teachers’
Conceptions Percentage

Item Before After

Number Dimensions Alternatives Course Course

1 What is Science? % %
Science is a body of knowledge A, B 34 44
Science is exploring the unknown C, D, G 42 25
Science is improving the world E, F 22 27
Other – 2 4
2 Scientific Assumptions
Science does not deal with supernatural beings A, B 24 51
Science deals with supernatural beings E 8 0
A supernatural being can alter the natural world D 52 35
Other – 16 14
3, 4, 5 Scientific Laws, Hypothesis and Theories
Scientific laws, hypothesis and theories are discovered A, B, C, D 58 41
Scientific laws, hypothesis and theories are invented E, F 36 57
Other – 6 2
6 The Attributes of Scientists
Private science values are important for doing science A, F 12 12
Private science values are not important for doing B, C, D, E 80 88
science
Other – 4 3
7 Differences Between Female and Male
Scientists
There is no difference between female and male D, G, H 70 72
scientists
There are some differences between female and male A, B, C, E, 30 24
scientists F, l̇, J
d
]I[ot

Other – 0 4
8 Scientific Models
Models are the copies of reality A, B, C 35 32
Models are close to being the copies of reality D 39 34
Models are not the copies of reality E, F, G 13 25
Other – 13 9
9 Relationship Among Hypotheses, Theories and
Laws
There is a hierarchical relationship among them A, B, C, D 72 55
They are different kinds of knowledge E 9 32
Other – 9 13
266 S. Celik and S. Bayrakçeken

Table 4. Continued.

Prospective Teachers’
Conceptions Percentage

Item Before After

Number Dimensions Alternatives Course Course

10 Scientific Methods
Scientific method is a hierarchical sequence A, B, C 62 45
(postulating a theory then creating an experiment to D, E, F
prove it) and making an experiment
Scientific method is an attitude that guides scientists G, J, I 32 53
in their work, there really is no such a thing as the
scientific method
Other – 6 2

11 The best scientists follow scientific methods A, B 44 29

The best scientists follow not only scientific methods C, D 48 68
but also imagination, originality and creativity
Other – 8 3

12 Consensus Making in Science

Scientists who propose a theory must convince other A, C 72 74
scientists
Scientists who propose a theory do not have to B, D, E, F 24 22
convince other scientists
Other – 3 3

13 Characteristics of the Knowledge Produced in

Science
Scientific knowledge is tentative A, B 82 89
Scientific knowledge is not tentative C, D 15 6
Other – 3 5

majority of the prospective teachers confused science with technology by giving the
view that ‘science is improving the world’ from 22% to 27% after the course. Related
to their answers to item 1, participants believed that facts and processes in science are
developed in order to improve our practice and quality of life.
The results in Table 4 (item 2) provide intriguing insights into prospective teach-
ers’ conceptions about scientific assumptions. But the view that ‘science does not
deal with supernatural beings’ considerably changed from 24% to 51% after the
course. On the other hand, while 8% of the participants before the course believed
that ‘science deals with supernatural beings’, after the course this view totally disap-
peared. Furthermore, there was a positive change in the prospective teachers’
beliefs that ‘a supernatural being can alter the natural world’, from 52% to 35%,
after the course.
 Prospective teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science 267

At the beginning of the course, most of the prospective teachers, influenced by the
traditional view, believed that scientific laws, hypotheses and theories are discoveries
which occur by accident. As seen in Table 4, these conceptions changed after the
course. The percentage of participants who believed that ‘scientific laws, scientific
hypotheses and scientific theories are discovered’ changed from 58% to 41%, and
also the percentage of participants who believed that these are invented changed from
36% to 57%. These results mean that the STS course had a positive influence espe-
cially on prospective teachers’ conceptions about characteristics of scientific laws,
hypotheses and theories. After the course, prospective teachers gained a constructivist
NOS view about the above dimensions. These results are also supported by the Sign
test results.
Most of the prospective teachers, from 80% to 88%, believed that scientists use their
imagination and creativity to invent constructs, models, theories and explanations to
account for phenomena and they believed that scientists must not be fully objective
in their studies, having been impressed by the constructivist epistemology (see item 6
in Table 4). According to the Sign test there was not any significant change in this
aspect of NOS, because there was a high agreement between prospective teachers’
conceptions and the constructivist science view at the outset of the course.
As seen from item 7 in Table 4, there was no change in the prospective teachers’
view that ‘there is no difference between male and female scientists’ before and after
the course. However, the view that ‘there are some differences between male and
female scientists’ decreased from 30% to 24% after the course.
Item 8 results indicate that few prospective teachers (13% before and 25% after the
course) believed that scientific models are not the copies of reality. The majority of
the subjects, 74% and 66% respectively at pre-test and post-test, believed that scien-
tific models are copies of reality or are close to being copies of reality, consistent with
the traditional perspective about scientific models; however, there was a significant
change in this aspect of NOS after intervention according to the Sign test.
Prospective teachers’ conceptions about hypotheses, theories and laws were
assessed by item 9. The majority of prospective teachers, about 72%, believed before
the course that there is a simplistic hierarchical relationship among scientific hypoth-
eses, theories and laws. After the course, this view decreased from 72% to 55%, and
the view that ‘hypotheses, theories and laws are different kinds of knowledge’
increased from 9% to 32%. According to these results, it could be said that the course
had a positive and clear effect on prospective teachers’ conceptions related to this
dimension of NOS.
At the outset of the course, the majority of the prospective teachers (62%) were of
the view that scientific method is a step-by-step process, in accordance with the
traditional scientific view. After the course, while there was a decrease from 62% to
45% in this traditional view, there was an improvement in the view that there is no
single method to perform science, and that scientists can adjust their method of
investigation and still obtain valid results, in accordance with the constructivist view
of science. The degree of significance of this result also supported the results of the
Sign test.
268 S. Celik and S. Bayrakçeken

After the STS course, there was a development in conceptions of prospective teach-
ers’ views of scientists’ roles. While almost half of participants (about 44%) believed
that ‘the best scientists follow scientific method’ prior to the STS course, this percent-
age decreased (to 29%) after the course. Additionally, there was an increase in the
view that ‘the best scientists follow not only scientific methods but also use imagina-
tion, originality and creativity’ from 48% to 68%, which is consistent with the
constructivist epistemology of the nature of science.
The majority of the prospective teachers believed that consensus making in science
has to be proved. This indicated that the majority of prospective teachers were aware
that consensus is the basis of science. Conceptions about consensus making in science
are consistent with the constructivist view of science epistemology.
Most of the prospective teachers (an increase from 82% to 89%) viewed that the
characteristic of scientific knowledge was tentative and consistent with the construc-
tivist view of the nature of science, both before and after the STS course. This is the
second target aspect of NOS which was consistent with the constructivist view both
at the outset and at the end of the course.

Conclusion
This study indicated that prospective teachers’ conceptions about the nature of
science could be considered relatively traditional prior to the STS course, consistent
with early studies (Bloom, 1989; Lederman, 1992; Ryan & Aikenhead, 1992;
Griffiths & Barman, 1995; Abell & Smith, 1994; Haidar, 1999; Tairab, 2001; Abd-
El-Khalick & Akerson, 2004). There were constructivist views only in the concep-
tions about gender in science and characteristics of scientific knowledge, consistent
with the results of Liu and Lederman (2000). The majority of the participants viewed
that science is a body of knowledge to discover nature. According to this view,
scientific knowledge is facts which are always truths. The roles of scientists in this case
are only to record what exists and systematically organize the resulting body of knowl-
edge. They do not use their imagination, originality, creativity or other individual
attributes. They only pursue scientific method, which is a hierarchical sequence
(questioning, hypothesizing, collecting data and concluding). In addition, the teach-
ers thought that scientific hypotheses, theories and laws are discovery and invention.
In their beliefs, there is a hierarchical sequence among scientific hypotheses, theories
and laws.
After the STS course, participants’ understandings had improved especially in
the inventive characteristic of science, scientific models, scientific method, relation-
ship between scientific hypotheses and laws, scientific assumptions and scientific
laws, hypotheses and theories. There was no indication of improvement in the
views about the attributes of scientists. As indicated with the Sign test, all these
improvements were significant except for items 1, 6 and 7. After the course, inter-
estingly, there was negative change in the conceptions of prospective teachers about
the definition of science. In any case prospective teachers’ conceptions about
personal characteristics of scientists and gender differences in scientists were in
 Prospective teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science 269

accord with the constructivist view at the beginning and end of the semester, so
there was not any significant change in these dimensions of NOS at the end of the
course.
In all of the SI activities students constructed problems or hypotheses, generated
data, used these data to explain those problems or to test the hypotheses and reported
their explanations. In class discussions, epistemological aspects of these activities
were addressed briefly. So it is difficult to relate each change in prospective teachers’
conceptions of the nature of science to each of the SI activities. But to develop specific
SI activities related to each target aspect of NOS might be more effective than the
approach used in this study.
The most important aspect of this study is that the change in prospective teachers’
conceptions about NOS is achieved in large classes, contrary to previous studies
carried out in classrooms with far fewer students (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman,
2000a). The results of this study support the view proposed by Akerson et al. (2000)
and Newsome (2002) that explicit reflective activity-based approach for instruction
of NOS would be more effective in enhancing participant views about the nature of
science. The Ryan and Aikenhead (1992) view, whereby an STS approach attaches
importance to instructional strategies such as small group work, student-centred
discussions and decision making to provide concrete opportunities for teachers to
make realistic views of science more explicit to students, is also supported by the
results of this study.
The results of the present study will be used in the next STS course and will be
investigated further. Hitchcock and Hughes (1997) and McNiff et al. (1997) explain
that action research is a form of practitioner research that can be used to help
individuals improve their professional practices. Consequently, this study can be
classified as action research conducted by a co-worker with the lecturer of the STS
course. This will be ongoing and the results of this study will be used in future
semesters to develop a more effective STS course to be used to improve prospective
teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science.
Additionally, the results of this study can help other lecturers to design an effective
STS course; however, the results cannot be generalized. To construct effective STS
instruction, more research has to be conducted. In order to further delve into
prospective teachers’ views of the nature of science, more research projects which will
implement other strategies need to be carried out. This might lead to more substantial
gains in prospective teachers’ understandings of specific aspects of NOS. We also feel
that the course needs to be nested within a broader program, one that also values
inquiry and thinking, one that presents a coherent and consistent experience for
the learners and one that seeks to be self-improving through processes of reflection,
feedback and critical inquiry
We think it is necessary to teach students concepts, but more importantly, the abil-
ity to realize that science changes as we learn more. This can be achieved through
carrying out ‘real’ scientific activities and discussing them as professional scientists
do. To achieve this aim perhaps a problem-based learning environment will assist the
process.
270 S. Celik and S. Bayrakçeken

Acknowledgement
We are grateful to M. Sozbilir for his valuable comments and assistance during the
writing of this paper. We also thank for the reviewers and the editor of RSTE for their
many thoughtful comments.

References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001) Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary
science courses, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12, 215–233.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Akerson, V. (2004) Learning as conceptual change: factors mediating the
development of pre-service elementary teachers’ views of nature of science, Science Education,
88, 785–810.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Lederman, N. G. (2000a) Improving science teachers’ conceptions of
nature of science: a critical review of the literature, International Journal of Science Education,
22, 665–701.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Lederman, N. G. (2000b) The influence of history of science courses on
students’ views of nature of science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1057–1095.
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.
Abell, S. K. & Smith, D. C. (1994) What is science? Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions
of the nature of science, International Journal of Science Education, 16, 475–487.
Abell, S. K, Martini, M. & George, M. (2001) ‘That’s what scientists have to do:’ preservice
elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science during a moon study, International
Journal of Science Education, 23, 1095–1109.
Aikenhead, G. & Ryan, G. (1992) The development of a new instrument: ‘Views on Science-
Technology-Society’ (Vosts), Science Education, 76(5), 477–491.
Aikenhead, G. S., Ryan, A. G. & Fleming, R. W. (1989) Views on Science-Technology-Society (form-
CDN.mc.5) (Saskatoon, Department of Curriculum Studies, University of Saskatchewan).
Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Lederman, N. G. (2000) Influence of a reflective explicit
activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science, Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295–317.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993) Benchmarks for science literacy: a
project 2061 report (New York, Oxford University Press).
Bloom, J. W. (1989) Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of science, theories and evolution,
International Journal of Science Education, 11, 401–415.
Craven III, J. A. & Penick, J. (2001) Preparing new teachers to teach science: the role of the
science teacher educator, Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(1). Available online at:
http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/ejse.html (accessed 25 April 2004).
Dass, P. M. (2005) Understanding the nature of scientific enterprise (NOSE) through a discourse
with its history: the influence of an undergraduate ‘history of science’ course, International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, 87–115.
Eichinger, D. C., Abell, S. K. & Dagher, Z. R. (1997) Developing a graduate level science education
course on the nature of science, Science & Education, 6, 417–429.
Eick, C. J. (2000) Inquiry, nature of science, and evolution: the need for a more complex pedagogical
content knowledge in science teaching, Electronic Journal of Science Education, 4(3). Available
online at: http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/ejse.html (accessed 25 April 2004).
Griffiths, A. K. & Barman, C. R. (1995) High school students’ views about the nature of science:
results from three countries, School Science and Mathematics, 95(5), 248–255.
Haidar, A. H. (1999) Emirates pre-service and in-service teachers’ views about the nature of
science, International Journal of Science Education, 21(8), 807–822.
 Prospective teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science 271

Hammrich, P. L. (1997) Confronting teacher candidates’ conceptions of the nature of science,

Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(2), 141–151.
Hitchcock, G. & Hughes, D. (1997) Research and the teacher (London, Routledge).
Hurd, P. D. (1998) Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world, Science Education, 82,
407–416.
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.
Kimball, M. (1968) Understanding the nature of science: a comparison of scientists and science
teachers, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 110–120.
Klopfer, L. E. & Cooley, W. W. (1963) The history of science cases for high schools in the devel-
opment of student understanding of science and scientists, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
1, 33–47.
Kuhn, T. (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd edn) (Chicago, IL, The University of
Chicago Press).
Lederman, N. G. (1986) Students’ and teachers’ understanding of the nature of science: a
reassessment, School Science and Mathematics, 86, 91–99.
Lederman, N. G. (1992) Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: a review of
research, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.
Lederman, N. G. (1999) Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom
practices: factors that facilitate or impede the relationship, Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 36(8), 916–929.
Lederman, N. G. & Lederman, J. S. (2004) Revising instruction to teach nature of science, The
Science Teacher, 71(9), 36–39.
Lederman, N. G. & Niess, M. (1997) The nature of science: naturally?, School Science and
Mathematics, 97, 1–2.
Lee, O. (1997) Scientific literacy for all: what is it, and how can we achieve it?, Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 34(3), 219–222.
Lin, H. S. &. Chen, C. C. (2002) Promoting preservice chemistry teachers’ understanding about
the nature of science through history, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 773–792.
Liu, S. Y. & Lederman, N. G. (2000) Taiwanese gifted students’ views of nature of science,
School, Science and Mathematics, 102(3), 114–123.
McNiff, J., Lomax, P. & Whitehead, J. (1997) You and your action research project (New York, Hyde
Publications).
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.
Meichtry, Y. J. (1999) The nature of science and scientific knowledge: implications for elementary
science methods course, Science and Education, 8, 273–286.
Mellado, V. (1997) Preservice teachers’ classroom practice and their conceptions of nature of
science, Science and Education, 6, 331–354.
Murcia, K. & Schibeci, R. (1999) Primary students’ teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science,
International Journal of Science Education, 21(11), 1123–1140.
National Research Council (1996) National science education standards (Washington, DC, National
Academy Press).
Newsome, J. G. (2002) The use and impact of explicit instruction about the nature of science and
science inquiry in an elementary science methods course, Science & Education, 11, 55–67.
Niaz, M. & Rodríguez, M. A. (2001) Do we have to introduce history and philosophy of science
or is it already ‘inside’ chemistry?, Chemistry Education: research and practice in Europe, 2(2),
159–164.
Palmquist, B. C. & Finley, F. N. (1997) Preservice teachers’ views of the nature of science during
a post-baccalaureate science teaching program, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(6),
595–615.
272 S. Celik and S. Bayrakçeken

Rubba, P. A. & Anderson, H. O. (1978) Development of an instrument to assess secondary school

students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge, Science Education, 62, 449–458.
Rubba, P. A. & Harkness, W. L. (1993) Examination of preservice and in-service secondary
science teachers’ beliefs about Science-Technology-Society interactions, Science Education,
77(4), 407–431.
Rubba, P. A., Bradford, C. S. & Harkness, W. J. (1996) A new scoring procedure for the Views on
Science-Technology-Society instrument, International Journal of Science Education, 18(4),
387–400.
Ryan, A. & Aikenhead, G. (1992) Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science,
Science Education, 76(6), 559–580.
Sandoval, W. A. & Morrison, K. (2003) High school students’ ideas about theories and theory
change after a biological inquiry unit, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 369–392.
Schibeci, A. R. & Murcia, K. (1999) Science is about facts, or is it?, Journal of College Science
Teaching, 29(3), 205–208.
Tairab, H. H. (2001) Pre-service teachers’ views of the nature of science and technology before
and after a science teaching methods course, Research in Education, 65, 81–87.
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. & Mamiala, T. L. (2002) Students’ understanding of the
role of scientific models in learning science, International Journal of Science Education, 24(4),
357–368.
Tsai, C. C. (1999) The progression toward constructivist epistemological views of science: a case
study of the STS instruction of Taiwanese high school female students, International Journal of
Science Education, 21, 1201–1222.
Yildirim, C. (2000) Philosophy of science (Istanbul, Remzi Publication).
 Prospective teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science 273

Appendix. Stems of VOSTS items which were used as data collection

instruments in this study
1. Defining science is difficult because science is complex and does many things.
But MAINLY science is:
2. Science rests on the assumption that the natural world can not be altered by a
supernatural being (for example, a deity).
3. For this statement, assume that a gold miner ‘discovers’ gold while an artist
‘invents’ a sculpture. Some people think that scientists discover scientific LAWS.
Others think that scientists invent them. What do you think?
4. For this statement, assume that a gold miner ‘discovers gold’ while an artist
‘invents’ a sculpture. Some people think that scientists discover scientific
HYPOTHESES. Others think that scientists invent them. What do you think?
5. For this statement, assume that a gold miner ‘discovers’ gold while an artist
‘invents’ a sculpture. Some people think that scientists discover scientific THEO-
RIES. Others think that scientists invent them. What do you think?
6. The best scientists are always very open-minded, logical, unbiased and objective
in their work. These personal characteristics are needed for doing the best
science.
7. There are many more women scientists today than there used to be. This will
make a difference to the scientific discoveries which are made. Scientific discov-
eries made by women will tend to be different than those made by men.
8. Many scientific models used in research laboratories (such as the model of heat,
the neuron, DNA, or the atom) are copies of reality.
9. Scientific ideas develop from hypotheses to theories, and finally, if they are good
enough, to being scientific laws.
10. When scientists investigate, it is said that they follow the scientific method. The
scientific method is:
11. The best scientists are those who follow the steps of the scientific method.
12. When a new scientific theory is proposed, scientists must decide whether to
accept it or not. Scientists make this decision by consensus; that is, proposers of
the theory must convince a large majority of fellow scientists to believe the new
theory.
13. Even when scientific investigations are done correctly, the knowledge that scien-
tists discover from those investigations may change in the future.