Teachers' knowledge structures for nature of science and scientific inquiry: Conceptions and classroom practice

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 51, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 1150-1184

  Bartos, Stephen A ^a   Lederman, Norman G ^b  

^a MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Knowledge structures; Nature of science; Pedagogical content knowledge; Scientific inquiry

Indexed keywords

SURVEYS;

CLASSROOM PRACTICES; KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES; NATURE OF SCIENCE; PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE; SCIENCE STANDARDS; SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY; SUBJECT MATTERS; TEACHERS' KNOWLEDGE;

TEACHING;

EID: 84908243892     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21168     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students' conceptions of the nature of science. Unpublished dissertation. Oregon State University.
2. 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, 417-436.
3. Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards. Retrieved April 13, 2013 from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards.
4. 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.
5. Alonzo, A. C., Kobarg, M., & Seidel, T. (2012). Pedagogical content knowledge as reflected in teacher-student interactions: Analysis of two video cases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1211-1239.
6. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
7. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
9. Barnett, J., & Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical context knowledge: Toward a fuller understanding of what good science teachers know. Science Education, 85, 426-453.
10. Bartos, S. A., Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Teachers' reflections on their subject matter knowledge structures and their influence on classroom practice. School Science & Mathematics, 114, 125-138.
11. Bell, R. L. (2009). Teaching the nature of science: Three critical questions. Best practices in science education monograph. Carmel, CA: National Geographic School Publishing.
12. Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students' understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487-509.
13. Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon one's conception of the nature of science: A follow up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 563-581.
14. Borda, E. J., Burgess, D. J., Plog, C. J., DeKalb, N. C.,&Luce, M. M. (2009). Concept maps as tools for assessing students' epistemologies of science. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 13(2), 160-185.
15. Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 473-498.
16. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
17. Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
18. Bryce,T. G. K. (2010). Sardonic science? The resistance to more humanistic forms of science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5, 591-612.
19. Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., Desena, A. T., & Squires, D. A. (1978). Content structure in science instructional materials and knowledge structure in students' memories (Report No. LRD-1978/22). Pittsburgh, PA: Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.
20. Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., Desena, A. T.,&Squires, D. A. (1981). Structural representations of students' knowledge before and after science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18, 97-111.
21. Chi, M., Glaser, R.,&Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 11-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Creswell, J.W.,&Clark,V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
23. Duffy, G.,&Roehler, L. (1987). Improving classroom reading instruction through the use of responsive elaboration. The ReadingTeacher, 40, 514-521.
24. Feilzer,M.Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 6-16.
25. Frederiksen, N. (1984). Implications of cognitive theory for instruction in problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 54, 363-407.
26. Gess-Newsome, J. (1992). Biology teachers' perceptions of subject matter structure and its relationship to classroom practice. Unpublished dissertation. Oregon State University.
27. Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (1993). Preservice biology teachers' knowledge structures as a function of professional teacher education: Ayear-long assessment. Science Education, 77, 25-45.
28. Gess-Newsome, J.,&Lederman, N. G. (1995). Biology teachers' perceptions of subject matter structure and its relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 301-325.
29. Gess-Newsome J. & Lederman N. G. (Eds.). (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
30. Glaser, B. G. (1964). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436-445.
31. Hanuscin, D. L. (2013). Critical incidents in the development of pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science: A prospective elementary teacher's journey. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 933-956.
32. Hanuscin, D. L., Akerson, V. L., & Phillipson-Mower, T. (2006). Integrating nature of science instruction into a physical science content course for preservice elementary teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants. Science Education, 90, 912-935.
33. Hanuscin, D. L., Lee, M. H., & Akerson, V. L. (2011). Elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science. Science Education, 95, 145-167.
34. Hashweh, M. (1987). Effects of subject matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics. Teaching andTeacher Education, 3(2), 109-120.
35. Hauslein, P. L., Good, R. G., & Cummins, C. L. (1992). Biology content cognitive structure: From science student to science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 939-964.
36. Hestenes, D. (2006). Notes for a modeling theory of science, cognition, and instruction. In E. van den Berg, T. Ellermeijer, & O. Slooten (Eds.), Modelling in physics and physics education. Proceedings of 2006 GIREP conference (pp. 34-65). Retrieved from http://modeling.asu.edu.
37. Hoz, R. (1987). Dimensions of teachers' knowledge structures and their identification by concept mapping. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
38. Hoz, R., Tomer, Y., & Tamir, P. (1990). The relations between disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge and the length of teaching experience of biology and geography teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 973-985.
39. Kim, B. S., Ko, E. K., Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2005). A developmental continuum of pedagogical content knowledge for nature of science instruction. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
40. Lederman, J. S., Bartos, S. A., Lederman, N. G., Meyer,D. Z., Antink-Meyer, A.,&Holliday G. (2012). Interaction of knowledge and pedagogical decisions in teaching NOS. Paper presented at the NARST Annual International Conference, Indianapolis, IN.
41. Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. A., Antink Meyer, A., & Schwartz, R. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learners' understandings about scientific inquiry-The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 65-83.
42. Lederman, N. G. (1986). Relating teaching behavior and classroom climate to changes in students' conceptions of the nature of science. Science Education, 70, 3-19.
43. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.
44. Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers' understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 916-929.
45. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831-880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
46. Lederman, N. G. (2009). Nature of science: Essential teacher knowledge. In A. Collins & N. Gillespie (Eds.), The continuum of secondary science and teacher preparation: Knowledge, questions, and research recommendations (pp. 143-158). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
47. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497-521.
48. Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2012). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socioscientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23, 285-302.
49. Lederman, N., & Druger, M. (1985). Classroom factors related to changes in students' conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 649-662.
50. Lederman, N. G., & Gess-Newsome, J. (1991). Metamorphosis, adaptation, or evolution? Preservice science teachers' concerns and perceptions of teaching and planning. Science Education, 75, 443-456.
51. Lederman, N. G., Gess-Newsome, J., & Latz, M. S. (1994). The nature and development of preservice teachers' conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 129-146.
52. Lederman, N. G., & Latz, M. S. (1995). Knowledge structures in the preservice science teacher: Sources, development, interactions, and relationships to teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6, 1-19.
53. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2004). Project ICAN: A professional development project to promote teachers' and students' knowledge of nature of science and scientific enquiry. Proceedings of the 11th AnnualSAARMSTEConference.
54. Lederman, N. G., & O'Malley, M. (1990). Students' perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225-239.
55. Lederman, N. G.,& Zeidler, D. (1987). Science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really influence teaching behavior? Science Education, 71, 721-734.
56. Loughran, J. J., Mulhall, P.,&Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 370-391.
57. Markham, K. M., Mintzes, J. J., & Jones, M. G. (1994). The concept map as a research and evaluation tool: Further evidence of validity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 91-101.
58. Merle-Johnson, D., Promyod, N., Cheng, Y., & Hanuscin, D. (2011). A self-study of the use of concept mapping to assess learners' conceptions of NOS. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kirşehir Education Faculty, 11, 223-241.
59. Murphy, G. L., & Wright, J. C. (1984). Changes in conceptual structure with expertise: Differences between real-world experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 10, 144-154.
60. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
61. National Research Council [NRC]. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
62. National Research Council [NRC]. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy. Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
63. National Research Council [NRC]. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
64. National Science Teachers Association [NSTA](1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980s. (AnNSTAposition statement.) Washington, DC: National ScienceTeachers Association.
65. Nilsson, P., & Loughran, J. (2012). Exploring the development of pre-service science elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of ScienceTeacher Education, 23, 699-721.
66. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 937-949.
67. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What "ideas-about science" should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692-720.
68. Ozgelen, S., Hanuscin, D. L., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2013). Preservice elementary science teachers' connections among aspects of NOS: Toward a consistent, overarching framework. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 907-927.
69. Preece, P. F.W. (1976). Mapping cognitive structures: Acomparison of methods. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(2), 1-8.
70. Roehler, L. R., Duffy, G. G., Conley, M., Herrmann, B. A., Johnson, J., & Michelson, S. (1990). Teachers' knowledge structures: Documenting their development and their relationship to instruction. Research Series Report No. 192, Institute for research on teaching. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
71. Roehler, L. R., Duffy, G. R., Herrmann, B. A., Conley, M., & Johnson, J. (1988). Knowledge structures as evidence of the 'personal': Bridging the gap from thought to practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20, 159-165.
72. Sandoval, W. (2014). Science education's need for a theory of epistemological development. Science Education, 98, 383-387.
73. Schwartz, R. S. (2004). Epistemological views in authentic science practices: A cross-discipline comparison of scientists' views of nature of science and scientific inquiry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
74. Schwartz, R.,&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.
75. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N., & 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 science inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610-645.
76. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N., Khishfe, R., Lederman, J. S., Matthews, L., & Liu, S. (2002). Explicit/ reflective instructional attention to nature of science and scientific inquiry: Impact on student learning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2002 Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Charlotte, NC.
77. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Thompson, T. (2001). Teaching "science as inquiry": The effects on grade nine students' views of nature of science and scientific inquiry. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
78. Shavelson, R. J. (1972). Some aspects of the correspondence between content structure and cognitive structure in physics instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 225-234.
79. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75.
80. Shuell,T. J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Reviewof Educational Research, 56, 411-436.
81. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
82. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Thosewho understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
83. Wallace, J. D.,&Mintzes, J. J. (1990). The concept map as a research tool: Exploring conceptual change in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 1033-1052.
84. Winitzky, N., Kauchak, D., & Kelly, M. (1994). Measuring teachers' structural knowledge. Teaching andTeacher Education, 10, 125-139.
85. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.