Eliciting the Views of Prospective Elementary and Preschool Teachers about the Nature of Science

Abstract

Recent science education standards emphasize the importance of the instruction of nature of science (NOS) concepts at all levels of schooling from pre-K to K-12. Delivering a proper NOS education to students is excessively dependent on their teachers with an adequate understanding of NOS concepts. The present study investigated the science conceptions of preschool and elementary teacher candidates. The data collected from a total of 506 prospective teachers were analyzed with respect to the following demographic variables: majors, genders, grade levels, high schools and GPAs of teacher candidates. “Student Understanding of Science and Scientific Inquiry (SUSSI)” developed originally by Liang et al. (2008) was the instrument used to collect data in this study. The data analyses were conducted using MANOVA and Pearson Correlation Coefficient. The corresponding mean scores of the teacher candidates in specific aspects of NOS ranged from “poor” to “informed” conceptions of science. All but one of the demographic variables yielded statistically insignificant results on the NOS conceptions of teacher candidates. The majors of the teacher candidates were detected as a significant variable influencing the conceptions of the teacher candidates. The results of the study were discussed in reference with the relevant literature.

Keywords

• Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis,MANOVA,nature of science conceptions,prospective elementary teachers,prospective preschool teachers

References

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the sources for our understandings about science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 353-374.
2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. (2009). The influence of metacognitive training on preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(16), 2161-2184.
3. Abramzon, N., Saccoman, S., & Hoeling, B. (2017). Improving the attitude of pre-service elementary school teachers towards teaching physics. International Journal of Elementary Education, 6(3), 16-23.
4. Aflalo, E. (2014). Advancing the perceptions of the nature of science (NOS): Integrating teaching the NOS in a science content course. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(3), 298-317.
5. Akerson, V.L. (2004). Designing a science methods course for early childhood preservice teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 16(2), 19-32.
6. Akerson, V.L., Buck, G.A., Donnelly, L.A., Nargund-Joshi, V., & Weiland, I.S. (2011). The importance of teaching and learning nature of science in the early childhood years. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 537-549.
7. Akerson, V.L., Buzzelli, C.A., & Donnelly, L.A. (2010). On the nature of teaching nature of science: Preservice early childhood teachers’ instruction in preschool and elementary settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 213-233.
8. Akerson, V.L., & Donnelly, L.A. (2010). Teaching nature of science to K-2 students: What understandings can they attain? International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 97-124.

9. Akerson, V.L., Morrison, J.A., & McDuffie, A.R. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers’ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 194-213.
10. Allchin, D. (2017). Beyond the consensus view: Whole science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 18-26.
11. Backhus, D.A., & Thompson, K.W. (2006). Addressing the nature of science in preservice science teacher preparation programs: Science educator perceptions. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 65-81.
12. Bell, R.L., & Clair, T.L.S. (2015). Too little, too late: Addressing nature of science in early childhood education. In K.C. Trundle, & M. Sackes (Eds.), Research in early childhood science education (pp.125-141). New York, NY: Springer.
13. Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.
14. Brown, T.A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
15. Clough, M.P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science Education, 15, 463-494.
16. Cobern, W.W., & Loving, C.C. (2002). Investigation of preservice elementary teachers’ thinking about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1016-1031.
17. Dagher, Z.R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Why does it matter? Science & Education, 25, 147-164.
18. Dare, E.A., & Roehrig, G.H. (2016). If I had to do it, then I would: Understanding early middle school students' perceptions of physics and physics-related careers by gender. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12, 1-11.
19. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-42.
20. Eflin, J.T., Glennan, S., & Reisch, G. (1999). The nature of science: A perspective from the philosophy of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 107-116.
21. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z.R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. New York, NY: Springer.
22. Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. New York, NY: Verso.
23. Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H.H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
24. Gerritsen, S., Plug, E., & Webbink, D. (2016). Teacher quality and student achievement: Evidence from a sample of Dutch twins. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 32, 643-660.
25. Good, R., & Shymansky, J. (2001). Nature-of-science literacy in benchmarks and standards: Post-modern/relativist or modern/realist? Science & Education, 10, 173-185.
26. Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
27. Harris, D.N., & Sass, T.R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 798-812.
28. Heckman, J. J. (2000). Policies to foster human capital. Research in Economics, 54(1), 3-56.
29. Herman, B.C., & Clough, M.P. (2014). Teachers’ longitudinal NOS understanding after having completed a science teacher education program. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14, 207-227.
30. Herman, B.C., Clough, M.P., & Olson, J.K. (2015). Pedagogical reflections by secondary science teachers at different NOS implementation levels. Research in Science Education, 45(4), 1-24.
31. Hodson, D., & Wong, S.L. (2017). Going beyond the consensus view: Broadening and enriching the scope of NOS-oriented curricula. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 3-17.
32. Hoe, S.L. (2008). Issues and procedures in adopting structural equation modeling technique. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 3(1), 76-83.
33. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
34. Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
35. Huang, F.L., & Moon, T.R. (2009). Is experience the best teacher? A multilevel analysis of teacher characteristics and student achievement in low performing schools. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 209-234.
36. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7), 591-607.
37. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching (pp.999-1021). New York, NY: Springer.
38. Jones, M.G., Howe, A., & Rua, M.J. (2000). Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84(2), 180-192.
39. Karaman, A. (2017). Identifying demographic variables influencing the nature of science (NOS) conceptions of teachers. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(5), 824-837.
40. Karaman, A., & Apaydin, S. (2014). Improvement of physics, science and elementary teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science: The case of a science summer camp. Elementary Education Online, 13(2), 377-393.
41. Karoly, L.A., Kilburn, M.R., & Cannon, J.S. (2005). Early childhood interventions: Proven results, future promise. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
42. Khishfe, R. (2013). Transfer of nature of science understandings into similar contexts: Promises and possibilities of an explicit reflective approach. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2928-2953.
43. Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
44. Kloos, H., Baker, H., Luken, E., Brown, R., Pfeiffer, D., & Carr, V. (2012). Preschoolers learning science: Myth or reality? In H. Kloos, B.J. Morris, & J.L. Amaral (Eds.), Current topics in children’s learning and cognition (pp.45-60). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech Open Access Publisher.
45. Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
46. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47. Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
48. Leden, L., & Hansson, L. (2017). Nature of science progression in school year 1-9: A case study of teachers’ suggestions and rationales. Research in Science Education, NA, 1-21.
49. Lederman, N.G. (2006). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L.B. Flick & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp.301-317). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
50. Lederman, N.G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23, 285-302.
51. Lederman, N.G., Lederman, J.S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138-147.
52. Liang, L.L., Chen, S., Chen, X., Kaya, O.N., Adams, A.D., Macklin, M., & Ebenezer, J. (2008). Assessing preservice elementary teachers’ views on the nature of scientific knowledge: A dual-response instrument. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 1-20.
53. Liu, S., & Tsai, C. (2008). Differences in the scientific epistemological views of undergraduate students. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1055-1073.
54. Losh, S.C., Wilke, R., & Pop, M. (2008). Some methodological issues with “Draw a Scientist Tests” among young children. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 773-792.
55. Luttrell, H.D., & Crocker, B.C. (1990). Science as a favorite or least favorite subject. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 2(1), 3-9.
56. Marope, M., & Kaga, Y. (2015). Repositioning ECCE in the post-2015 agenda. In M. Marope & Y. Kaga (Eds.), Investing against evidence: The global state of early childhood care and education (pp.9-33). Paris, France: UNESCO Publishing.
57. Matthews, M.R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In M.S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies (pp.3-26). New York, NY: Springer Publishing.
58. McDonald, C.V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1137-1164.
59. Mesci, G., & Schwartz, R.S. (2017). Changing preservice science teachers’ views of nature of science: Why some conceptions may be more easily altered than others. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 329-351.
60. Miller, M.C., Montplaisir, L.M., Offerdahl, E.G., Cheng, F., & Ketterling, G.L. (2010). Comparison of views of the nature of science between natural science and nonscience majors. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9, 45-54.
61. Mulaik, S.A., James, L.R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C.D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 430-445.
62. Newton, D.P., & Newton, L.D. (1992). Young children’s perceptions of science and the scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 14(3), 331-348.
63. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes toward science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079.
64. Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the Nature of Science: Comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teacher. Science Teacher Education, 77(3), 261-278.
65. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Vienna, Austria: Hutchinson & Co.
66. Posnanski, T.J. (2010). Developing understanding of the nature of science within a professional development program for inservice elementary teachers: Project nature of elementary science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 589-621.
67. Quigley, C., Pongsanon, K., & Akerson, V.L. (2010). If we teach them, they can learn: Young students views of nature of science aspects to early elementary students during an informal science education program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 887-907.
68. Schreiber, J.B., Stage, F.K., King, J., Nora, A., & Barlow, E.A. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323-337.
69. Schwartz, R.S., & Lederman, N.G. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205-236.
70. Shonkoff, J.P., & Phillips, D.A. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
71. Song, J., & Kim, K. (1999). How Korean students see scientists: the images of the scientist. International Journal of Science Education, 21(9), 957-977.
72. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
73. Thompson, R.A., & Nelson, C.A. (2001). Developmental science and the media: Early brain development. American Psychologist, 56(1), 5-15.
74. Van Dijk, E.M. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95(6), 1086-1100.
75. Wilkins, J.L.M. (2010). Elementary school teachers’ attitudes toward different subjects. Teacher Educator, 45(1), 23-36.
76. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
77. Wong, S.L., & Hodson, D. (2008). From the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93, 1-22.
78. Wong, S.L., & Hodson, D. (2010). More from the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about science as a social practice. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1431-1463.