Draft Literature Review
Erin E. Peters
January 27, 2006
Nature of Science as a Metacognitive Resource: Prompting Students to Think Like Scientists
One of the most prominent reforms in science education in the past ten years is inquiry science (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993). Educators who teach inquiry science are striving to improve student understandings and explanations about the real world. In other words, inquiry science is the enactment of the nature of science. Too often, inquiry science is taught as either the scientific method or as “hands-on,” disconnected activities (Bybee, 2004). Science is usually transmitted in the classroom as a rigid body of facts to be accumulated, instead of a way of knowing (vanDriel, Beijaard & Verloop, 2001). National documents such as the National Science Education Standards (1996) or The Benchmarks for Science Literacy (1993), written for the audience of science teachers, tend to give ambiguous guidelines for teaching science inquiry. In the current environment of standards-based education, it is easy for science teachers to slip into the mode of disseminating information rather than teaching the ways of knowing that categorize the discipline of science (Duschl, 1990). McComas, Almazroa, and Clough (1998) call for a more prominent role of the nature of science in curriculum to be explicitly taught for maximum effectiveness. Researchers have delved into how teachers perceive the nature of science and the implications this has on instruction.
Defining
the Nature of Science
In the past, there was not a consensus on what elements of the nature of science were important to teach, but in the past ten years researchers have converged on aspects of the nature of science, and more recently there has been an agreement on the elements of the nature of science (McComas et al., 1998). The literature converges on seven aspects of the nature of science that defines science as a discipline: a) scientific knowledge is durable, yet tentative, b) empirical evidence is used to support ideas in science, c) social and historical factors play a role in the construction of scientific knowledge, d) laws and theories play a central role in developing scientific knowledge, yet they have different functions, e) accurate record keeping, peer review and replication of experiments help to validate scientific ideas, f) science is a creative endeavor, and g) science and technology are not the same, but they impact each other (McComas, 2004). Evidence of these principles as the foundation for how science operates as a discipline can be found in science education research journals, books about the philosophy and epistemology of science, and practitioner handbooks.
Preservice Teachers’ Concepts of the Nature of Science
The majority of the recent research in the nature of science lies in examining teacher conceptions regarding the nature of science and how this translates to students through inquiry activities. This research attempts to provide guidance to further the development of successful teacher training programs designed to move the scientific education community to more of an understanding of science as both factual knowledge and how the factual knowledge is built and away from an understanding of science as solely a body of factual knowledge.
Much
of the focus of research projects is on pre-service teachers, and many of these
studies have shown to be only moderately, if at all, effective. In a study
focusing on preservice science teachers who had naďve
views of the nature of science, researchers provided an intervention that
consisted of explicit reflective instruction on the nature of science that
showed to be somewhat effective. The main influences on success were
motivation, cognition and worldview of the preservice
teacher (Abd-El-Khalick & Akerson,
2004). In a similar study, elementary preservice
teachers who held naďve views on the nature of science gained substantially in
targeted nature of science concepts except subjective and social aspects of the
nature of science (Akerson & Abd-El-Khalick,
2000). Some success in learning aspects of the nature of science was found in a
study where preservice teachers learned first about
the nature of science and then separately learned how to teach the elements of
the nature of science in their instruction (
Explicit
Instruction of the Nature of Science
Many of the studies regarding the nature of science reported gains in teacher understanding through interventions involving explicit instruction. In an action research study, an experienced teacher worked with an experienced researcher to identify aspects of the nature of science taught in an inquiry activity. The study found that it was difficult to present cogent and coherent instruction on the nature of science through inquiry and illustrated the teacher’s pivotal role in designing class discussions in what science is and how scientists work (Bianchini & Colburn, 2000). Some success in teaching preservice elementary teachers was found in an intervention that involved explicit instruction in the nature of science. Participants of the study views changed from science as primarily a body of knowledge to a more appropriate blended view of science as a body of knowledge generated through active application of science inquiry (Gess-Newsome, 2002). In a comparative study, researchers taught the same science content to two groups of inservice teachers. The control group received only implicit instruction of the nature of science via the content, and the experimental group received explicit instruction of the nature of science. The control group showed no gains in knowledge of the nature of science, but the experimental group showed significant gains (Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002). Although it is intuitive to think that just by conducting inquiry that students will understand how scientists operate, there is a body of research that demonstrates explicit instruction in the nature of science has been found to be more effective.
Translating
Knowledge of the Nature of Science into Classroom Practice
Even
with modest gains in understanding of the nature of science, teachers still
fail in translating this knowledge into classroom practice. A study of a group
of preservice teachers with adequate knowledge of the
nature of science showed that there was not much instruction involving the
nature of science due to a preoccupation with classroom management and the
mandated curriculum (Abd-El-Khalick, Bell & Lederman, 1998). In a study involving preservice
teachers in
Teacher Competence in the Nature of Science
There
is consensus about the more important features of the nature of science, and
there is insight to some of the factors that contribute to developing an
understanding of the nature of science in teachers. These include experience in
science teaching, an active role in translating nature of science knowledge
into classroom practice, and explicit instruction of the concepts of the nature
of science. Beginning science teachers do not have the experience to develop a
set of knowledge and beliefs, which is usually consistent with how teachers act
in practice (van Driel, Beijaard
& Verloop, 2001).
The next step is to examine the research that looks for ways to develop teacher competence in the nature of science. One study examined inservice teacher for factors involved in competence in teaching the nature of science (Bartholomew & Osborne, 2004). They found five critical domains necessary for competence 1) ) teachers knowledge and understanding of the nature of science , 2) teachers conceptions of their own role in the classroom, 3) teachers’ use of discourse, 4) teachers’ conceptions of learning goals, and 5) the nature of classroom activities. Bartholomew and Osborne developed a continuum that helps to identify the amount of competence teachers have in each of the domains. Teachers continue to develop their views of the nature of science through their professional experiences (Nott & Wellington, 1998), so continuous, quality professional development may be key in emergent competence in teacher knowledge of the nature of science. A professional development activity involving the communication of recent developments in the field of biotechnology by scientists to teachers showed that scientists demonstrated a strong commitment to empiricism and experimental design, but not necessarily the nature of science (Glason & Bentley, 2000). Developing a competence in teaching the nature of science is indeed a complicated endeavor when the scientific community itself has difficulty in expressing the nature of science comprehensively.
Student
Understanding of the Nature of Science
Investigations into student understanding of the nature of science originate in different realms, but tend to converge on the same finding, that students need to experience cognitive dissonance in order to eliminate archaic conceptions of the nature of science. When students were presented with discrepant events in a long-term setting, their notions of the nature of science began to conform to professional scientists’ understanding of the nature of science (Clough, 1997). Students in another classroom instructed in canonical understanding of science did not show maturity in their understanding of the nature of science, but after incorporating student ideas, including exploration of misconceptions, into instruction the students showed gains in their understanding of the nature of science (Akerson, Flick, & Lederman, 2000). Hogan (2000) suggests that science education researchers can gain a better understanding of how students operationalize the nature of science by dividing up their knowledge into two categories: distal knowledge, how students understand formal scientific knowledge, and proximal knowledge, how students understand their own personal beliefs and commitments in terms of science. Hogan believes that by seeing how the two categories of knowledge intersect, researchers can gain access into how to better develop student understanding of the nature of science.
In another study of student understanding of the nature of science, it was found that students views depended greatly on moral and ethical issues, rather than in newly presented material (Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, & Simmons, 2002). Instead of changing their archaic notions of the nature of science, students tended to hang on to their prior understandings even when presented with conflicting information. Undergraduate science majors were found to change their conceptions of the nature of science during a long-term project that offered many opportunities to discover conflicting information (Ryer, Leach, & Driver, 1999). It appears from the research that students will change their conceptions of the nature of science to more sophisticated through long-term exposure to discrepant information, but before that can be accomplished more information about student processes in learning the nature of science is needed.
Instruments
Used to Measure Understanding of the Nature of Science
Many of the instruments used in the studies regarding the nature of science tend to be objective, pencil and paper assessments which subsequently changed into more descriptive instruments. Toward the end of the 1990’s several researchers make arguments that traditional paper and pencil assessments would not be adequate in fully explaining what needs to be known about teacher and student conceptions of the nature of science (Lederman, Wade, & Bell, 1998). Researchers responded to this argument by conducting interviews along with surveys or by including several open-ended questions on surveys in order to get more descriptive data. Several versions of an instrument originally developed by Lederman, the Views of Nature of Science (VNOS), have been used mostly by the researchers who focus on preservice teachers. Items in this instrument ask teachers to explain scientific activities in their classroom. Researchers then use a rubric to identify when teachers explicitly mention one of the seven identified aspects of the nature of science. Other instruments have been developed to be more descriptive in explaining student achievement in the nature of science such as Scientific Inquiry Capabilities and Scientific Discovery (Zachos, Hick, Doane, & Seargent, 2000). Although the objective, pencil and paper assessments have been altered to include more description of mechanisms, there is still a need for improved assessments regarding both the teacher and student understandings of the nature of science.
Recommendations for Further Study of the
Nature of Science
The field of the
nature of science still requires a great deal of exploration. In order to fully
understand how people learn such as esoteric subject as the nature of science
there needs to be more dialogue between the scientific community and science
teachers (Glason & Bentley, 2000), more
understanding of student views of the nature of science (Zeidler,
Walker, Ackett & Simmons, 2002), and more
understanding of how teachers who have a sophisticated view of the nature of
science can incorporate these ideas into classroom practice. Several
researchers have begun to take a non-traditional view of the nature of science
in order to expose some of the mechanisms to understanding. Wong (2002)
suggests that science educators and science education researchers abandon the
search for commonalities in the nature of science and begin to embrace the
diversity of the nature of science in order to translate ideas to the
classroom.
Influences
of Epistemology of Science on Instruction
The
way a teacher understands science as a way of knowing greatly influences how
the teacher implements instruction and how the students perceive the discipline
of science (DeSautels & Larochelle,
2005). Teachers often set up discourse in science as a pattern of question
asking, students answer questions and teacher evaluates the student answer
(Lemke, 1990). When teachers establish such attitudes toward science, they
evoke the idea that science is a collection of final facts and that learning
science is the accumulation of these facts. Meyer (2004) found novice teachers
discussed knowledge as if it was a static object, and learning was an
accumulation of more bits of information while expert teachers took a more
complex view of scientific knowledge.
Nature
of Science as a Metacognitive Resource
The aspects of the nature of science can be useful in helping students to think about their epistemology. Examining the nature of science can supply characteristics that distinguish science from other ways of knowing and explicitly help students scrutinize their rationale in forming ideas (Duschl, Hamilton, & Grandy, 1992). Teachers can utilize these characteristics in their lessons to help students to examine the information they know and think about how student knowledge is scientific. Educational researchers studying metacognition are in agreement that traditional methods of teaching do not allow students to demonstrate all of their knowledge about science (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000).
The field of the nature of science still requires a great deal of exploration. In order to fully understand how people learn such as esoteric subject as the nature of science there needs to be more dialogue between the scientific community and science teachers (Glasson & Bentley, 2000), more understanding of student views of the nature of science (Zeidler et al., 2002), and more understanding of how teachers who have a sophisticated view of the nature of science can incorporate these ideas into classroom practice. Bell and Lederman (2000) studied scientists who had sophisticated but different views on the nature of science to see how they made decisions based on their views. Their research showed no differences in decision making because the scientists made their professional decisions based on personal values, morals/ethics and social concerns. Bybee (2004), a researcher who has been involved in policy for decades, notices an overemphasis in teaching strategies regarding the nature of science and an under emphasis on contemporary learning theory. The field of the nature of science has been successful in defining operational elements of the nature of science and now it is time for the field to progress into cognitive science domains.
Literature in metacognition emphasizes the lack of consensus on how epistemological factors influence student learning (Brown, 1987). More research in developing a thinking strategy or ethic to evaluate the scientific merit of information can change how students develop their scientific way of knowing. Many instructors attempt to teach scientific thinking veiled as the scientific method, which is limiting the way students construct epistemologies regarding the nature of science. Cognitive change can be invoked through deep processes such as metacognition (Flavell, 1987). More research in this field will help to produce more fully informed ideas on how epistemological factors influence student learning.
Defining
Metacognition
Metacognition
can be defined as the executive functions that control actions or the ability
to recognize thinking patterns and evaluate them (Metacognition book?). There
has been some evidence that developing metacognition can enhance the
incorporation of content knowledge in students. Students were better able to
recognize the importance of knowing a few key species in the study of ecology
and to be able to use the language of ecology to help them describe and discuss
ecology because metacognitive cues were incorporated into lessons (Magntorn & Hellden, 2005).
Question-based reflective verbalization, another form of metacognitive
prompting, requires students to describe, explain, and evaluate a finished
design solution to another person and leads to significant improvements in the
solution quality (Wetzstein & Hacker, 2004).
Socially
Constructed Knowledge
Methods of teaching that allow students to construct knowledge socially are helpful in developing deeper meaning because thought processes of students are exposed and are easier to understand (Gijlers & de Jong, 2005; Hogan 1999). Social construction of knowledge also aids students in recognizing the processes involved in developing scientific arguments such as cultural experience in scientific communities (Hogan, & Maglienti, 2001). Several studies revolve around an exemplary teacher who uses status words to help students evaluate the scientific merit of their knowledge (Beeth, 1998; Beeth & Hewson, 1999). Some of the techniques of the exemplary teacher are not transferable, but the method she uses to develop student ideas with status words is transferable to other teachers. Intelligibility is the primary criteria students use to determine if an idea makes sense to them. If students find the idea to be intelligible, then they are asked to see if the idea is plausible. To be plausible means that the idea correlates to students’ own experiences or experiences they have heard about. The last criteria, the most difficult to determine, is fruitfulness. If the idea can be transferred to different applications, then the idea is fruitful. Some of the research suggests that these strategies are useful for elementary students, but attempts to use them with middle school students were not as successful. More sophisticated structures may be needed to elicit social construction of knowledge for middle school students.
Argumentation
in the Construction of Scientific Understanding
Another camp of researchers sees the chief metacognitive tool as argumentation, as it is central to the presentation of scientific information. Research from this area has shown that written reports of scientific knowledge do not necessarily indicate the totality of student knowledge (Chin, 2000). Students who use written, visual and oral presentations of information are the methods that are most successful in showing the depth of student knowledge, but teachers do not have the pedagogical knowledge to conduct whole class evaluation of arguments that allow students to have a voice in the class (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000), so professional development is necessary for progress in this area. When students are allowed to experience the process of developing and defending arguments, students are better equipped to understanding science as a process of generating knowledge rather than a body of factual information in its final form.
Feedback
Loops in Construction of Scientific Knowledge
Teachers who are asked to develop authentic science activities for students often interpret science instruction as a series of often disconnected hands-on lesson which in and of themselves do not guarantee student understanding. Using a process called Metacognitive Learning Cycle emphasizes formal opportunities for teachers and students to talk about their science ideas, forming a feedback loop that informs the development of scientific ideas. One study tested the effectiveness of the Metacognitive Learning Cycle by setting up a control group and an experimental group. There was no significance difference in ecological understanding across two treatment groups, but delayed post test mean scores were higher with Metacognitive Learning Cycle group than with control group (Blank, 2000).
Self-regulation, another form of a feedback loop, can help students monitor their learning progress accurately. Self-regulated learners adopt learning orientation, whereas naďve learners adopt performance orientation (Zimmerman, 1998). By giving students metacognitive tools to check if they are thinking like scientists in an inquiry activity, students may be able to progress from performance orientation to learning orientation. Naďve self-regulators seldom verbalize and are unaware of imagery as a guide and tend to rely on the results from trial-and-error experiences to implement new methods of learning (Costa, Calderia, Gallastegui & Otero, 2000). Skillful self-regulators attribute negatively evaluated outcomes mainly to strategy use, learning method, or insufficient practice, where naďve learners tend to attribute them to ability limitations. Students can be taught positive self-regulations feedback loops by teachers who have access to metacognitive prompts that promote the nature of science.
Relevance
of the Nature of Science as Metacognition to Scientific Education
Literature in metacognition emphasizes the lack of consensus on how epistemological factors influence student learning. More research in developing a thinking strategy or ethic to evaluate the scientific merit of information can change how students develop their scientific way of knowing. Many instructors attempt to teach scientific thinking veiled as the scientific method, which is limiting the way students construct epistemologies regarding the nature of science. A large quantity of research cited earlier illustrates student and teacher tendency to cling to prior ideas regardless of contradiction by new data. Cognitive change can be invoked through deep processes such as metacognition. More research in this field will help to produce more fully informed ideas on how epistemological factors influence student learning.
Need
for Revised Reform
Despite
the efforts of many reform movements, science is usually taught in the
classroom as a rigid body of knowledge to be acquired rather than a way of
knowing. Many of the reform efforts ignore teachers’ existing knowledge,
beliefs, and attitudes (van Driel, Beijaard & Verloop, 2001).
Science teachers continue to exclusively teach scientific knowledge, ignoring
the inherent ideas that guide the attainment of the knowledge (Duschl, Hamilton & Grandy, 1992). Metacognitive
prompts encourage teachers to develop knowledge regarding the nature of science
and help students to regard the evolving guidelines the discipline of science
provide. Thinking about thinking can lead teachers away from a
depersonalized, context-free, and mechanistic view of teaching in which the
complexity of the teaching enterprise is not acknowledged (Doyle, 1990). It has
been shown that teacher cognition about the teaching and learning of science
are consistent with constructivist ideas, their actual classroom behavior may
be more or less ‘traditional’ (Briscoe, 1991; Johnston, 1991; Mellado, 1998). Metacognitive prompts may give teachers a
concrete teaching tool with which to operationalize
their cognitive beliefs.
Duschl and Gitomer (1991) argue
that conceptual change cannot occur without a concurrent change in the ways in
which knowledge claims are validated. The traditional approach to teaching is
to evoke conceptual change. A parallel way to nudge conceptual change in
students is to have students examine the way in which they consider valid
knowledge claims.
Implications
for Future Research
There is a gap in research where
the fields of the nature of science and metacognition intersect. The research
that has been done in the field of the nature of science attempts to take new teachers
and explicitly teach them elements of the nature of science. There is very
little success using different variations of this method. There is less success
in getting teachers to translate this knowledge into classroom practice.
Perhaps it is because teachers need to evaluate their own learning in order to
facilitate student learning in such an esoteric concept as the nature of
science.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of the nature of science. Science education, 10, 101-143.
Abd-El-Khalick, F.,
Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of research in science teaching, 37, 1057-1095.
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, 295-317.
Akerson, V. L. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: A yearlong case study of a fourth-grade teacher. Journal of research in science teaching, 40, 1025-1049.
Akerson, V. L., Flick, L. B. & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of primary children’s ideas in science on teaching practice. Journal of research in science teaching. 37, 363-385.
American
Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy.
Bartholomew, H. & Osborne, J. (2004). Teaching students “ideas-about-science”: Five dimensions of effective practice. Science education, 36, 655-682.
Beeth, M. E. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change: Using status as a metacognitive tool. Science Education, 23, 738 – 759.
Beeth, M. E. & Hewson, P. W. (1999). Learning goals in an exemplary science teacher’s practice: Cognitive and social factors in teaching for conceptual change. Science Education. 60, 738-823.
Bianchini, J. A. & Colburn, A. (2000). Teaching the nature of science through inquiry to prospective elementary teachers: A tale of two researchers. Journal of research in science teaching, 37, 177-209.
Blank, L. M. (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: A better warranty for student understanding? Science Education 84, 486-506.
Briscoe, C. (1991). The dynamic interactions among beliefs, role metaphors, and teaching practices: A case study of teacher change. Science Education, 75, 185-199.
Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more
mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert
& R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition,
Motivation and Understanding.
Bybee, R.
W. (2004). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. In
L.B. Flick and N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp.
1-14).
Clough, M. P. (1997). Strategies and activities for initiating and maintaining pressure of students’ naďve views concerning the nature of science. International journal of science education, 28, 191-204.
Chin, C. & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of research in science teaching, 37, 109-138.
Cobern, W. W., Gibson, A. T. & Underwood, S. A. (1999). Conceptualizations of nature: An interpretive study of 16 ninth graders’ everyday thinking. Journal of research in science teaching. 36, 541-564.
Costa, J., Calderia, H., Gallastegui, J. R. & Otero, J. (2000). An analysis of question asking on scientific texts explaining natural phenomona. Journal of research in science teaching. 37, 602-614.
Crawford, T. (2005). What counts as knowing: Constructing a communicative repertoire for student demonstration of knowledge in science. Journal of research in science teaching, 42, 139-165.
Crawford, T., Kelly, G. J. & Brown, C. (2000). Ways of knowing beyond facts and laws of science: An ethnographic investigation of student engagement in scientific practices. Journal of research in science teaching, 37, 237-258.
Dawson, R. E. (2000). Critical thinking, scientific thinking, and everyday thinking: Metacognition about cognition. Academic exchange quarterly.
Deboer,
G. E. (2004). Historical perspectives on inquiry teaching in
schools. In L.B. Flick and N. G. Lederman
(Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp.
17-35).
DeSautels, J. & Larochelle, M. About the epistemological posture of science teachers. Online at http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~jossem/ICPE/D3.html on January 15, 2006.
Doyle, W. (1990).
Themes in teacher education research. In W. R. Housten (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education
(pp. 3-24).
Driver, R.,
Duschl,
R. A. (1990). Restructuring
science education: The importance of theories and their development.
Duschl, R. A. & Gitomer, D. (1991). Epistemological perspectives on conceptual change: Implications for classroom practice. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 28, 839-858.
Duschl, R. A., Hamilton, R. J.,
& Grandy, R. E. (1992). Psychology and Epistemology:
Match or Mismatch When Applied to Science Education? In R. A.
Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of
Science, Cognitive Psychology, and Educational Theory and Practice.
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about
the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.),
Metacognition, Motivation and Understanding.
Gess-Newsome, J. (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.
Gijlers, H. & de Jong, T. (2005). The relations between prior knowledge and students’ collaborative discovery learning processes. Journal of research in science teaching. 42, 264-282.
Glasson, G. E. & Bentley, M. L. (2000). Epistemological undercurrents in scientists’ reporting of research to teachers. Science education, 84, 469-485.
Herbert, B. E. (2003, November). The role of scaffolding student metacognition in developing mental
models of complex, Earth and environmental systems. Paper presented at
DFG-NSF International Workshops on Research and Development in Mathematics and
Science Education,
Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students’ knowledge about the nature of science. Science education, 84, 51-70.
Hogan, K. (1999). Relating students’ personal frameworks for science learning to their cognition in collaborative contexts. Science Education. 83, 1-32.
Hogan, K. (1999). Thinking aloud together: A test of an intervention to foster students’ collaborative scientific reasoning. Journal of research in science teaching. 36, 1085-1109.
Hogan, K. & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students’ and scientists’ reasoning about conclusions. Journal of research in science teaching. 38, 663-687.
Johnson, K. (1991). High school
science teachers’ conceptualizations of teaching and learning: Theory and
practice. European Journal of Teacher
Education, 14, 65-78.
Kang, N. & Wallace, C. S. (2004). Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals and practices. Science education, 89, 140-165.
Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariate causality. Journal of research in science teaching. 40, 898-921.
Khishfe, R. & Adb-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explict and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of research in science teaching, 39, 551-578.
Koch, A. (2001). Training in metacognition and comprehension of physics texts. Science Education, 85, 758-768.
Lawson, A. E. (2005). What is the role of induction and deduction in reasoning and scientific inquiry? Journal of research in science teaching. 42, 716-740.
Lederman, N. G., Wade, P. D. &
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F.,
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science.
Magntorn, O. & Hellden, G. (2005). Student-teacher’s ability to read nature: Reflections on their learning in ecology. International Journal of Science Education. 27, 1229-1254.
McComas, W. F. (2004). Seeking NOS Standards: What Content Consensus Exists in Popular
Books on the Nature of Science. Paper presented at the meeting of
National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
McComas, W. F., Almazroa, H. & Clough, M. P. (1998). The nature of science in science education: An introduction. Science & Education, 7, 511-532.
Mellado, V. (1997). Preservice teachers’ classroom practice and their conceptions of the nature of science. Science and Education, 6, 331-354.
Mellado, V. (1998). The classroom practice of preservice
teachers and their conceptions of teaching and learning science. Science Education, 82, 197-214.
Meyer, H. (2004). Novice and expert teachers’ conceptions of learners’ prior knowledge. Science Education, 88, 970-983.
Nott, M. & Wellington, J. (1998). Eliciting, interpreting and developing teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Science and education, 7, 579-594.
National Research
Council. (1996). National
science education standards.
Ryer, J., Leach, J. & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of science. Journal of research in science teaching, 36, 201-219.
Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G. & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science education, 88, 610-645.
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, 205-236.
Southerland, S. A., Gess-Newsome, J. & Johnston, A. (2003). Portraying science in the classroom: The manifestation of scientists’ beliefs in classroom practice. Journal of research in science teaching, 40, 669-691.
Tobin, K. & McRobbie, C. J. (1997). Beliefs about the nature of science and the enacted science curriculum. Science & education, 6, 355-371.
Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D. & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (2), 137-158.
Wallace, C. S, & Kang, N. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers’ beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing belief sets. Journal of research in science teaching, 41, 936-960.
Wetzstein, A. & Hacker, W. (2004). Reflective verbalization improves solutions – The effects of question-based reflection in design problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 145-156.
Wong, E. D. (2002). To appreciate variation between scientists: A perspective for seeing science’s vitality. Science education, 86, 386-400.
Zachos, P., Hick, T. L., Doane, W. E. & Sargent, C. (2000). Setting theoretical and empirical foundations for assessing scientific inquiry and discovery in educational programs. Journal for research in science teaching, 37, 938-962.
Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A. & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science education, 86, 343-367.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing
self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary
instructional models. In D. H. Schunk & B. J.
Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated
learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 1-19).