Content uploaded by Corinna Bath
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Corinna Bath on Jul 19, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Contextualisation of Factual Knowledge in Genetics: A Pre- and Post- Survey
of Undergraduates’ Understanding of the Nature of Science
Imme Petersen1, Stephanie Herzog2, Corinna Bath1, André Fleißner2
1 Institute of Flight Guidance, Technische Universität Braunschweig, GERMANY
2 Institute of Genetics, Technische Universität Braunschweig, GERMANY
*Corresponding Author: i.petersen@tu-braunschweig.de
Citation: Petersen, I., Herzog, S., Bath, C., & Fleißner, A. (2020). Contextualisation of factual knowledge in genetics: A pre- and post- survey of
undergraduates’ understanding of the nature of science.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education
, 16(2), e2215. https://doi.
org/ 10.29333/ijese/7816
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Received:
10 December 2019
Accepted:
17 February 2020
Having an adequate understanding of the Nature of Science (NOS) is an integral part of scientific literacy.
However, NOS is usually not yet explicitly embedded in the science curricula at German universities. To
fill this gap, we have introduced NOS elements in the undergraduate course on genetics at the biology
department of an Institute of Technology in North-western Germany in summer semester 2018. The strat-
egy used an exclusive-reflective approach by emphasising socio-scientific issues. As Kostas Kampourakis
(2016) suggests, our design considers not only general aspects of the NOS concept, but also the family
resemblance approach presented by Erduran and Dagher (2014). To evaluate changes in students’ NOS
understanding, we did a pre- and post-survey about their NOS understanding following the SUSSI ques-
tionnaire designed by Liang et al. (2008). The NOS understanding of the 93 participants shows statistically
significant improvement in 14 out of 24 items (58,3%) aer the teaching unit, compared to the pre-survey.
While the pre-survey shows a larger gap of understanding regarding the relations of environment, theory,
and law, the post-test results show significant eects on learning, in particular regarding subjective, so-
cial, and cultural influences on science. However, the students’ understanding regarding the relations of
environment, theor y, and law still remains weak. The findings indicate that some preconceptions were not
as amenable to change as others. In particular, the assumed facticity of scientific knowledge seems to be
a powerful preconception that is much more firmly fixed than the contextualization of scientific discovery.
Keywords: scientific literacy, undergraduates, genetics, nature of science, NOS, family resemblance ap-
proach, biology, biotechnology, Germany
Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education
2020, 16(2), e2215
ISSN: 2633-6537 (Online)
https://www.ijese.com
Copyright © 2020 by Author/s and Licensed by Veritas Publications Ltd., UK This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License which permit s unrestricted us e, distribution, and reproduc tion in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
INTRODUCTION
The overall goal of science education in school and
university is to enhance scientific literacy (e.g. Bybee &
McCrae, 2011; Laugksch, 2000; McComas, 2017). Even if
the term represents a complex idea, it basically implies
knowledge of the content and methods of science, as
well as of the nature of science (e.g. Abd-El-Khalick, Bell
& Lederman, 1998; Kirchner, 2010). Accordingly, students
need to acquire both factual knowledge on laws, concepts ,
models, and theories in science, as well as experimental
techniques and procedures and reflexive knowledge
on epistemological understandings, values, and beliefs
inherent in scientific knowledge and its development
(Lederman, 2006; N. G. Lederman & Lederman, 2014;
Schulz, 2014). Hence, being scientifically literate means
being able to understand how scientists work and how
scientific knowledge is processed for making informed
decisions on personal and societal issues. This becomes
more and more important in the era of ‘post-truth’, in
which increasing information is available but its sources
are becoming increasingly complex and incomprehensi-
ble (e.g. Rose, 2018).
To understand the characteristics of science and the
significance and relatedness of science in society, it is
frequently claimed that students need to develop an
understanding of the nature of science (NOS) from pri-
mary school onwards (e.g. Akerson & Ad-El-Khalick, 2005;
Khishfe, 2008; Tao, 2003). Even though there is on-going
Petersen, Herzog, Bath, & Fleißner
/ Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education
2 / 13
debate among science education researchers about the
concept of NOS and its age-adapted implementation,
there is a general consensus about the most relevant ele-
ments of NOS that should be included in science curricula
(McComas & Olson, 1998; Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell
& Schwartz, 2002; Niaz, 2009; Osborne, Collins, Ratclie,
Millar & Duschl, 2003). Accordingly, an appropriate NOS
understanding is characterized by the notion that scien-
tific knowledge involves a combination of both empirical
evidence (observations of the natural world) and subjec-
tive behaviour (scientists’ backgrounds, experiences and
biases). Furthermore, NOS understanding sees scientific
knowledge as durable, yet tentative. It may be modified
or altogether changed under the influence of new infor-
mation; it is the product of human creativity and imagi-
nation, and is socially and culturally embedded. A sound
understanding of the NOS should also include an ability to
distinguish between observation (data) and inference (re-
sult), as well as theory and law as dierent components of
the structure of knowledge (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman,
2000; Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell & Schwartz, 2002;
Lederman, 2006, 2007). Taken these characteristics to-
gether, NOS understanding refers to the epistemological
underpinnings of the activity and products of science
and not simply to science processes (Lederman, Antink,
& Bartos, 2014).
Consequently, NOS has been incorporated in multiple
standard documents on science education worldwide
(McComas & Olson, 1998; AAAS, 2007; OECD, 2017). While
teaching NOS has a long tradition in English-speaking
countries and more recently in Asian countries, in Germany
it is only implemented in directives for school teaching
(Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister
der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschlands, 2005a,
2005b, 2005c). These national science education stan-
dards aim at contributing to scientific literacy, including
NOS as one of four areas of competency (Neumann,
Kauertz & Fischer, 2010). However, national science ed-
ucation standards for university education are not yet
available in Germany.
Most empirical research on NOS views has focused
on primary and secondary school teachers and their
students, in order to understand how ideas about science
are taught and learned in school. These studies have
found that neither teachers nor students typically hold
informed views of NOS (e.g. Lederman, Lederman, Bartels
& Jimenez, 2019; Michel & Neumann, 2017; Dogan & Abd-
El-Khalick, 2008, Kang, Scharmann & Noh, 2005; Khishfe &
Abd-El-Khalick, 2002).
However, the NOS understanding of university stu-
dents has received comparatively little attention. The
majority of existing studies have focused on those who
are studying to become teachers, as they will commu-
nicate the NOS to the next generation. Empirical results
demonstrate that college students enrolled in a history of
science course held naive or inaccurate ideas about NOS,
similar to those of high school students (Abd-El-Khalick,
2006; Ibrahim, Buler & Kubben, 2009). Some studies
compared NOS views of natural science and non-natural
science majors, finding no significant dierences (Liu
& Tsai, 2008; Desaulniers Miller, Montplaisir, Oendahl,
Cheng & Ketterling, 2010). A few studies that have ex-
amined the NOS ideas of undergraduate science majors
in the U.S. have stressed that the students’ views were
mainly influenced by the idea of ‚truth’ in science. The
surveyed students stated, for example, that all claims in
science can be proved or disproved empirically (Ryder &
Leach, 1999). In addition, Dagher and BouJaoude (1997)
have shown that undergraduate biology majors held
very narrow definitions of what a scientific theory is. This
permits them to dismiss many of the theories used in
biology as being unscientific. Comparably, Parker and her
colleagues (2008) have argued that according to students
in atmospheric science, scientific theories and laws are
related by a hierarchy of proof, where a theory is unprov-
en, and once proven, becomes a law.
Such empirical results indicate that students oen
hold preconceptions that form the basis for an incorrect
perception of various aspects of NOS, such as that science
gives definitive answers or that scientists are always ob-
jective. Therefore, teaching about NOS involves a process
of change from existing preconceptions, whose construc-
tion oen starts in elementary school and that become
more and more implicit and resistant later on (e.g. Abd-
El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Clough, 2006; Chen, Chang,
Lieu, Kao, Huang & Lin, 2013). Hence, it is important to
address students’ preconceptions about NOS before and
aer NOS teaching interventions at dierent age levels
– which includes science education beyond primary and
secondary school.
A deeper understanding of how such naive NOS views
of students in the early stages of their bachelor pro-
gramme can be changed is still pending. Nevertheless,
it is important to study this group of university students
because natural science students will later on have ca-
reers in science and will be communicating science to the
public and political decision-makers in both formal and
informal settings (Kampourakis, 2016). We experience
undergraduate students in the life sciences following
contemporary debates on fake news and post-truth and
raising questions regarding meaning, responsibility, and
the applicability of science and technology. However, at
least in the German context, they oen feel overwhelmed
or le alone with this pressing issue, as reflections of the
Petersen, Herzog, Bath, & Fleißner
/ Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education
3 / 13
knowledge production and on its social context are usual-
ly not embedded in the curricula yet. To face this develop-
ment, we started an innovative programme in undergrad-
uate teaching at a biology department at a university in
North-western Germany in the summer semester of 2018.
We chose the course ‘basics of genetics’ as it is a compul-
sory course in the beginning of the bachelor programmes
‘biology’ and ‘biotechnology’. Within both curricula, the
course is valued as important to introduce into the basics
of the vital subfield of genetics, as well as to introduce
into the self-understanding of the life sciences.
Within the existing curricula, we designed a NOS teach-
ing unit that explores historical and current cases in genet-
ics from the NOS perspective (see Abd-El-Khalick, 2013).
We supplemented the lecture with extra workshops using
cooperative learning and small-group discussion tools
(see Wolfensberger & Canella, 2015). The workshops al-
lowed the students to reflect the NOS approach. As Kostas
Kampourakis (2016) suggests, our design considers not
only the domain-general aspects of the NOS concept, but
also the „family resemblance“ approach, presented by
Erduran and Dagher (2014), to enhance students’ capacity
for perceiving scientific knowledge in its epistemological
and socio-scientific context.
The study reported here intends to assess the newly
designed NOS teaching unit in terms of its eects on
students’ views on selected aspects of NOS understand-
ing. The study is therefore split into two parts: First, we
investigate the NOS understanding of bachelor students
enrolled in an undergraduate biology course on genetics
before the course has started; based on the students’
initial NOS views, we explore changes in their NOS under-
standing aer teaching the newly designed NOS teaching
unit. This approach aims at answering the following
research questions: (1) What are the preconceptions on
various NOS aspects of science students enrolled in a
bachelor course on genetics? (2) In what ways, if any, do
these preconceptions change through the newly designed
teaching unit?
Teaching Genetics with a NOS Understanding
Research on teaching approaches that intend to
enhance an understanding of NOS demonstrates that
students do not automatically learn about NOS when
they are engaged in inquiry activities and, following from
that, do not automatically learn about NOS by doing
science (e.g. Schwartz & Crawford, 2006; Khishfe & Abd-
El-Khalick, 2002). Instead of teaching NOS understanding
implicitly, Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000) argue
that NOS understanding needs to be explicitly addressed
in the science curricula. They suggest an explicit-reflec-
tive approach, whereat the instructional sequence of
the teaching unit should include specific NOS learning
outcomes to improve students’ NOS understanding. It
is recommended that the students investigate the NOS
concept by learning about the content of science (Khishfe
& Abd-El-Khalick, 2002; Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman,
2000). Furthermore, the teaching unit should support
students’ awareness of NOS aspects through enhancing
student reflection on their science learning experiences
(Abd-El-Khalick, 2013). Addressing students’ ability to
reflect about the NOS concept seems to be necessary, as
students oen hold incorrect perceptions and believes in
myths about science, such as that science gives definite
answers, or that scientists’ work is always objective and
value-free (Lederman, 1992; McComas, 1998).
For addressing such incorrect perceptions about NOS,
Kampourakis (2016, p. 669) values the domain-general
NOS aspects as an eective entry point (e.g. Lederman,
2007; McComas, 1998; Niaz, 2009; Osborne et al., 2003).
Once this is done, it seems promising to supplement NOS
teaching with aspects specific to the disciplinary context
to which the NOS teaching refers to.
The use of domain-specific content in the form of
science stories – cases from the history of science – has
been an oen-chosen approach in teaching about NOS
(Teixeira, Greca & Freire, 2012; Howe & Rudge, 2005; Howe,
2007; Kim & Irving, 2010) and has had a long tradition in
science teaching (Matthews, 2012). Several studies report
the positive eects of instructional units that incorporate
historical case studies into teaching about NOS. Aer these
teaching interventions, students’ understanding of sever-
al NOS aspects showed an improvement (Irwin, 2000; Lin
& Chen, 2002; Rudge & Howe, 2009; Paraskevopoulou &
Koliopoulos, 2011; Wolfshagen & Canella, 2015). However,
McDonald (2017) shows in her analysis of Australian junior
secondary textbooks representations of NOS within the
topic of genetics that NOS was not suiciently explicitly
addressed in the case studies. She particularly criticizes
missing links and guiding questions to represent the
interconnection of the dierent NOS aspects towards a
more holistic NOS understanding (see also Campanile et
al., 2015 for the example of NOS representations in the
Mendelian genetics sections of U.S. high school biology
textbooks). Against the backdrop of genetics, she further
concludes that not all NOS aspects have to be necessar-
ily included to represent the holistic NOS understanding
within the chosen context. Hence, NOS aspects may be
dierently represented depending on the science disci-
plines or the science topics within disciplines.
Metz and his colleagues (2007) argue that science
stories need to meet some requirements in order to be
suitable for domain-specific teaching about NOS such as
in genetics. They are supposed to illustrate the course
Petersen, Herzog, Bath, & Fleißner
/ Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education
4 / 13
of scientific inquiry, and, at the same time, several, if
not all relevant domain-general NOS aspects. Dierent
narratives about each historical case should be available
(e.g. technological, biographical, political, social, ethical
etc.) and be condensed to storylines with protagonists,
incidents, and plots that connect the incidents. Erduran
and Dagher (2014) utilized these complex science stories
to develop a classification that can be used to detect
domain-specific NOS aspects that are relevant to a partic-
ular science story under study. The classification is based
on the idea of family resemblance, in particular to the fact
that the members of a family can resemble one another in
some details but not in others (Irzik & Nola, 2014). Based
on resemblances and dierences within the science
system, Erduran and Dagher (2014) state that all scien-
tific disciplines share certain characteristics; however,
none of these characteristics define science or specifies
certain disciplines. To introduce this family resemblance
approach (FRA) visually, they developed the family
resemblance approach wheel that identifies science as
a cognitive-epistemic and a social-institutional system
at the same time. Both systems are subdivided into a
number of categories that are not necessarily equally
important in each science story (see Figure 1). Science as
a cognitive-epistemic system refers to scientific aims and
values, scientific knowledge, scientific practices, as well
as scientific methods and methodological rules. These
four categories are embedded into a larger concentric cir-
cle encompassing professional activities, scientific ethos,
social certification and dissemination, and social values.
Finally, a meta-level characterization of three categories
related to science in society are part of an outer circle:
financial system, social organizations and interactions,
and political power structure. The boundaries between
the circles and the categories included in them are inter-
woven, perforated, and allowing fluid movement across
lines (Erduran & Dagher, 2014).
For teaching domain-specific NOS, the FRA wheel
enables a dierentiated picture of science. While FRA
highlights both the similarities and the dierences among
scientific disciplines, it provides a coherent approach to
capture domain-general and domain-specific aspects of
NOS at the same time (McDonald, 2017).
Taken for granted that science is an interactive and dy-
namic endeavour, the FRA wheel allows choices for select-
ing the NOS content that is most relevant to the science
story under study, e.g. by looking closely at epistemic or
institutional categories or focusing on relations between
categories. Therefore, this domain-specific approach
can be used to permeate overarching science stories in
specific scientific fields and disciplines based on the artic-
ulation of the various aspects of NOS (Erduran, Dagher, &
McDonald 2019), while at the same time domain-general
aspects, associated with the general NOS consensus view,
are represented in the FRA wheel as well.
The NOS Teaching Unit
We designed a NOS teaching unit for the under-
graduate course ‘basics in genetics’ that combines the
domain-general and domain-specific approaches in a
Figure 1. FRA Wheel: Representing science as a cognitive-epistemic, social-institutional and political system (reprinted with
permission from Erduran and Dagher (2014, p. 28)
Petersen, Herzog, Bath, & Fleißner
/ Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education
5 / 13
learning pathway. The NOS unit was integrated in an
existing introductory genetics class for second semester
biology and biotechnology students. The compulsory
class teaches the foundations of classical and molecular
genetics, including the laws of inheritance, the molecular
basis of genetics and general experimental concepts of
genetic research in bacteria and higher organisms. The
course consists of two parts, lecture and tutorial. During
the lecture, given as teacher-centred teaching for about
100 students, the basics of genetics have been introduced
by the process of scientific inquiries to produce genetic
knowledge, which were key to the development of mod-
ern genetics. Recurrent parts of the historical science sto-
ries are the protagonists (usually the acting scientist(s)),
the objects of study (e.g. organisms like Drosophila
melanogaster, Streptococcus spe. or Escherichia coli),
the methodology used (e.g. experiments, modelling) and
the scientific knowledge produced (for example the laws
of heredity or the description of genes, chromosomes,
DNA structure, or mutations). Before introducing the NOS
unit into the course, the previous presentation focussed
mostly on the scientific facts and the experimental con-
cepts leading to their discoveries. While the main historic
protagonists were briefly introduced, no suicient con-
textualization was provided. It became obvious that as
a consequence, the students failed to develop an NOS
understanding and oen viewed scientific facts as inde-
pendent of the process and the protagonists of their dis-
covery. The previous teaching concept of presenting the
science content in form of historical science stories was,
however, very well suited to start teaching NOS concepts
explicitly.
The specific learning outcome of the NOS teaching unit
for the students was defined as developing NOS percep-
tions associated with scientific literacy. Lederman and
his colleagues (Lederman, Antink, & Bartos, 2014, p. 292)
demonstrate in their paper that socio-scientific issues oer
a vivid context for students to reflect on NOS perceptions,
in particular regarding the nature of scientific knowledge
and its interpretation in a given socio-cultural context.
Therefore, we selected socio-scientific issues arising
from genetics intending to enhance basic (domain-gen-
eral) NOS perceptions associated with scientific literacy.
However, our aim was not to teach students individual
NOS aspects, but to present NOS holistically in a contex-
tualised manner. That is why we first introduced NOS as
an academic concept and talked about why it is important
to include NOS explicitly in the curricula. In the lecture, we
continued with an overview of domain-general aspects of
NOS understanding by elaborating on the issue of how
science produces epistemic knowledge within the science
system and discussing what kind of socio-scientific issues
might come up during knowledge generation in terms
of societal interests, eects, and consequences (Sadler,
2004). By this stage of the lecture, we started to elaborate
explicitly on domain-specific NOS aspects in genetics.
The introduction of the FRA wheel helped us to highlight
the political and societal dimensions in conjunction with
social-institutional and cognitive-epis temic issues. On the
one hand, we introduced the FRA wheel as a pedagogical
tool that provides a set of categories to identify a variety
of shared and distinct features that characterize the sci-
ences. As the domain-general aspects are included in the
FRA categories, we addressed in which FRA category they
take eect, e.g. the notion of tentativeness of knowledge
in the FRA-category „scientific knowledge“, the notion of
empirical evidence in the category „scientific methods
and methodological rules“, the notion of the scientists’
subjectivity in „scientific ethos“ or the notion of social
and cultural embeddedness in the meta-level categories
„financial system, social organisations and interactions,
and political power structure“. At the same time, the FRA
wheel provides a framework that allows to highlight par-
ticular NOS aspects that are most relevant to the science
stories in genetics (Erduran, Dagher & McDonald, 2019).
We exemplified the entanglement of domain-specific
and domain-general application on the basis of two pop-
ular historical inquiries in the field of genetics, namely
the laws of heredity by Gregor Mendel and the model of
the DNA structure by James Watson, Francis Crick and
Rosalind Franklin. The cases were presented by dierent
materials, e.g. through narrative texts and the protago-
nists’ own words, photographs and charts. Aerwards,
the given materials were structured and discussed by ap-
plying the FRA wheel. In this process, the particularly rel-
evant NOS aspects for the stories were explicitly stressed.
For example, in the case of the Mendelian genetics we
first presented the well-known story told in the science
textbooks. Aerwards we re-structured the science story
by the FRA wheel categories and highlighted in the dis-
cussion that the cognitive-epistemic system dimensions
such as the produced scientific knowledge or the used
methods and methodological rules are well considered
in the textbook release, while social-institutional system
dimensions such as Mendel’s professional activities or
the impact of social values or social organisations and
interactions were only poorly or unbalanced addressed
describing the monk Gregor Mendel as lonely and finally
forgotten genius breeding peas isolated in the monastery
garden (e.g. De Castro, 2016). For another example how
to apply the FRA wheel see the science story on the DNA
discovery in Dagher & Erduran (2016, p. 157, Table 1).
Meanwhile, there is some literature how the FRA frame-
work can be linked to broader societal concepts such as
Petersen, Herzog, Bath, & Fleißner
/ Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education
6 / 13
social justice providing recommendations for curricula
policy (Erduran, Kaya, & Avraamidou, in press).
In order to engage students in reflexive discourses on
NOS aspects (see also Wolfensberger & Canella, 2015;
Lederman, 2006), we complemented the lecture with a tu-
torial in which the students were invited to independently
analyse historical, and later on, current science stories in
genetics. We oered three parallel tutorials to keep the
number of participants lower than 30; tutorial participa-
tion was voluntary. In the first tutorial session, we went
over the FRA wheel with its categories again and gave
the students guidelines for investigating FRA categories
in science stories (see Kaya & Erduran, 2016, p. 1124f.;
Erduran, Kaya & Dagher, 2018). The students read either
Mendel’s original paper (1866) or that of Watson and Crick
(1953) and were invited to small-group work to select and
discuss FRA categories that are relevant in terms of the
content and style of the original paper. This small-group
work was followed by a whole-class discussion that
aimed at discussing the groups’ selection of FRA catego-
ries in the two science stories. Finally, they were asked
to draw conclusions about the progression of scientific
endeavours and the development of genetics and science
as a system. During the second tutorial session, the stu-
dents were invited to use the acquired tools in the current
controversy on the development of new genome editing
tools, in particular CRISPR/Cas9. In recent years, a debate
has raged over the merits of this technology, which culmi-
nated in patent disputes between the dierent institutes
involved. The students were asked to prepare one section
of discourse in independent group work for which they re-
ceived selected publications (scientific reviews, reactions
in science blogs, statements on the scientific certification
system, scientific policy advice statements, media cov-
erage on ethical issues and scientists’ biographies). The
student groups presented the prepared material in the
tutorial session and expanded on selected NOS aspects in
group discussions. Their task was to develop central ques-
tions for a plenary discussion to evaluate the research on
genome editing regarding socio-scientific issues. Finally,
they discussed their questions, e.g. should the Nobel
prize in 2019 be granted for genome editing and, if yes, to
whom?, in the plenary to synthesize the results.
Pre- and Post- Evaluation of the Students’ NOS
Understanding
The purpose of this research was not only to design a
NOS teaching unit in genetics, but also to evaluate it by
exploring the domain-general NOS understanding of the
participants before and aer the unit. In order to gain in-
sight into students’ views of NOS and their likely transition
to genetics, we did a pre-test in the first and a post-test in
the last lecture of the teaching unit, four weeks later.
Survey
As we wanted to assess changes or continuities in stu-
dents’ NOS perceptions over time, we decided to use the
same instrument in pre- and post-testing. We employed
a standardized questionnaire for large-scale research fol-
lowing the SUSSI questionnaire (Liang, Chen, Chen, Kaya,
Adams, Nacklin & Ebenezer, 2008).
The questionnaire used consists of 24 statements
targeting six domain-general NOS themes: (1) observa-
tion and interferences, (2) change of scientific theories,
(3) scientific laws versus theories, (4) social and cultural
influence on science, (5) imagination and creativity in
scientific investigation; and (6) methodology in scientific
investigation. Each theme consists of four statements,
each of which the survey participant has to evaluate by
a five-point Likert scales ranging from strongly agree to
strongly disagree.
The questionnaire was translated into German by the
authors. The German version’s clarity and comprehen-
sibility was validated by two master’s students at the
biology department. The questionnaire was designed
to be self-explanatory, stating the purpose and frame of
the study and giving additional information, especially
that participation is voluntary, that the analysis of the re-
sponses is carried out anonymously and in the aggregate
only, and that there is no right or wrong answer to any of
the questions.
Data Analysis
The responses of the participants to the Likert scale
items were separately coded with numerical values and
transcribed into a data matrix. A score of 5 represents
the most informed NOS understanding and a score of 1
the least informed understanding. The positive scores
‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree more than disagree’ and the
negative scores ‚strongly disagree’ and ‚disagree more
than agree’ were pooled and presented together. For both,
the pre- and the post-test, the mean scores for each Likert
item were calculated and the eects of socio-demograph-
ic characteristics, type of major (biology, biotechnology),
and NOS prior understanding were analysed. The pre-
and post-survey were compared using the Pearson c2 test
(2-tailored). P values for these analyses were considered
significant if below the .05 level. Descriptive statistical
procedures were performed using SPSS 25.0.
Survey Participants
100 students participated in the class, of which
93 voluntarily filled out the pre- and post-question-
naire. This corresponds to a return rate of 93%. The
Petersen, Herzog, Bath, & Fleißner
/ Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education
7 / 13
socio-demographic characteristics are based on self-dec-
laration by the students who filled out the questionnaire.
The proportions of study programmes are almost bal-
anced (biology 52,7% and biotechnology 47,3%). Nearly
80 % of students are registered in their second semester.
Two thirds of the participants are female (64,5%). In the
pre-test, about one third has heard of NOS in school or
university before (32,3%).
Survey Results
The pre-survey shows high uncertainty in the students’
responses. The attenuated Likert-point ‚agree more than
disagree’ consistently reaches higher scores than the
ensured Likert-points ‚strongly agree’ and ‘strongly dis-
agree’ with three exceptions. Therefore, we only assume
high certainty in the students’ NOS perceptions from the
outset in those three cases. Uncertainty is also reflected
in the point ‚neither agree nor disagree’ that reaches
more than 25% in 15 Likert items of the questionnaire, in
one item even reaching 45,2%.
The post-survey mirrors an increasing certainty in the
responses (see Figure 2). Compared to the pre-survey, the
amplitude of the categorical Likert-points ‚strongly agree’
and respectively ‚strongly disagree’ is considerably higher
in all Likert items. However, the vague Likert-point ‚nei-
ther agree nor disagree’ still reaches in some of the items
more than 30%.
Subgroups of the survey (study programme, semester,
gender, prior NOS knowledge) are statistically not rele-
vant in the pre- and post-survey.
NOS Themes
Observations and inferences: The pre-survey partici-
pants assess scientific observations as a process aected
by subjective influences. 82,8% of the students confirm
that the scientists’ prior knowledge may aect their ob-
servations. Objectivity is considered achievable only for
about 12% of the participants, whereas 54,8% of them
state that objective observations are not be possible.
Accordingly, more than half of students regard observa-
tions as distinct from facts.
Compared to the pre-survey, the post-survey consis-
tently show higher scores and more secure responses.
Items on subjectivity and objectivity in research are
statistically relevant: 93,5% of respondents confirm the
influence of researchers’ subjectivity on their scientific
work, of which 51,6% were very secure (pre-test: 22,6%)
and only 5,4% are insecure about their answer (p<0,001).
The other significant result questions researchers’ objec-
tivity: 88,1% of the post-participants reject the statement
that scientists’ observations of the same event will be the
same, because scientists are objective, and only 2,2%
are convinced that objectivity is possible in observation
(p<0,001).
Change of scientific theories: Two-thirds of all pre-sur-
vey students state that scientific theories are preliminary
and constantly under review (73,1%). Nearly all students
accept that scientific theories can be rejected and re-
placed because of new knowledge. This item receives
the highest score of secure responses in the entire ques-
tionnaire (‘strongly agree’, 65,6%; together with ‘agree
more than disagree’, 99,1%). The majority also accept that
existing observations can be re-interpreted, resulting in
theory change (80,7%). However, asked for the relevance
of experiments on the stability of theories, about two-
thirds of students separate experiment from observation
and acknowledge accurate experiments as unchangeable
facts contributing to the resistance of theories to change
Figure 2. Overview of statistically relevant increases within the answer category ‚strongly agree or disagree respectively
Petersen, Herzog, Bath, & Fleißner
/ Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education
8 / 13
(62,3%).
The post-survey shows more secure results than in
the pre-test in every statement. For example, 75,3% of
participants strongly agree that scientific theories can be
replaced (p=0,034) and also the increase on the statement
that theories are constantly under review is statistically
significant (p=0,047). Here the categorical answer is 14%
higher than in the pre-survey. Thus, the results reflect
coherence in the responses, indicating that the students
have gained a profound understanding of the provisional
nature of theories.
Scientific laws vs. theories: In this section the weak-
est results are obtained, which indicates the biggest
misunderstandings regarding NOS. The section begins
with the positivist position that scientific theories exist
in the natural world and are investigated by scientifically
exact methods. Only 14% reject this statement, whereas
47,3% confirm it. 47,3% also acknowledge that scientific
laws are – in contrast to theories – not subject to change.
The majority of the students doesn’t seem to understand
the relation of theories and laws: 57% assume that laws
are permanently proven theories and 60,2% are of the
opinion that theories would explain scientific laws.
Compared to the pre-survey results, the post-survey
again shows consistently higher scores in terms of NOS
understanding. However, taking into consideration that
only a few participants in pre-testing give answers that
correspond to NOS, the post-scores are also highly below
the questionnaire average and there are no statistically
relevant increases. However, a notable increase can be
seen in the item where 22,6% reject the claim that scien-
tific theories exist in the natural world and are uncovered
by scientific investigation. On the contrary, slightly more
students than in the pre-survey claim that scientific laws
are proven theories (58%). From this it follows that, for
the majority of students, the relation of theory and law
remains diuse and unclear even aer the NOS teaching
unit.
Social and cultural influence on science: On average,
60 to 70% of pre-survey participants agree that culture
and society influence scientific research. The statements
that cultural values and expectations determine what
science is (73,1%) and how science is conducted are the
most approved (65,6%). These results go hand-in-hand
with the statement of about two thirds of the students
who question the impartiality of scientists (62,4%) and
the independence or universality of science (69,6%).
Compared to the pre-survey, NOS understanding
increases in a statistically relevant manner in all four
statements of the post-survey (p=0.04, 0.011, 0.004,
<0.001). The NOS-corresponding scores reach more than
80% in three of four items. In sum, these results indicate
the significant learning eects of the NOS teaching unit,
reflecting increased sensitivity regarding the cultural and
societal framework conditions of research and science.
Imagination and creativity in scientific investiga-
tion: In the view of the pre-survey participants, data
collection is a non-creative process; only 28% claim that
scientists need creativity and imagination for data collec-
tion. Instead, 51,6% of students acknowledge that data
analysis and interpretation need creativity, whereas the
majority doesn’t value creativity in conflict with logical
reasoning (62,3%). Some participants run into trouble
when they are asked to assess creativity in comparison
to objectivity: 45,2% hold the opinion that they wouldn’t
aect one another. It can therefore be concluded that ob-
jectivity in research processes is valued as relevant, but
this value is seen as susceptible to risk.
As in the previous section, there is a statistically rel-
evant increase in all four statements of the post-survey
(p=0.02, 0.005, 0.001, <0.001). The NOS corresponding
responses are about 20% higher compared to the pre-sur-
vey. These results indicate the high learning eects of
the NOS teaching unit. However, NOS understanding is
not homogenous spread in this section, as about half of
the post-survey respondents evaluate data collection as
a creative process (46,3%), while 73,1% agree the state-
ment that data analysis and interpretation need creativity
and imagination. About 80% see a relationship between
creativity and logical reasoning, too (80,6%). The learning
eect in the evaluation of objectivity seems to be high:
68,9% of the students claim that imagination and creativ-
ity don’t interfere with objectivity (increase of 23,7%).
Methodology of scientific investigation: The variety
of methods is recognized by nearly all pre-survey partici-
pants (92,5%) and about 60% are highly convinced of their
evaluation (‘strongly agree’, 58,1%). This corresponds to
the approval of the statement that experiments are not
the only means used to generate scientific knowledge
(65,6%). However, there are still uncertainties regarding
the evaluation of methods: Nearly half of the participants
state that scientists need to follow the same step-by-step
scientific method (48,4%), whereas 40,9% doubt that the
correct use of method would always produce accurate
and true results.
As in the two previous sections, the increase in the
NOS-corresponding responses is statistically relevant in
three out of four statements of the post-survey (p=0.017,
0.042, 0.02). Again, the scores indicate more security in
NOS perceptions compared to the pre-survey, for example
an increase of 22,5% in the first item and 13,9% in the last.
However, half of the participants remain uncertain about
the relation of method and result, as only about half of the
participants (48,4%) disagree with the statement that the
Petersen, Herzog, Bath, & Fleißner
/ Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education
9 / 13
correct application of the scientific method would always
lead to accurate and true results.
DISCUSSION
Up until now, very few studies have evaluated NOS
teaching units for undergraduate students with specific
majors. We designed a NOS teaching unit for a compul-
sory course in the basics of genetics being attended by
undergraduates of the bachelor programme of ‘biology’
and ‘biotechnology’ at a German university.
As we observed that our students in the life sciences
oen feel disoriented in public controversy on genetics in
the era of fake news and post-truth, the specific learning
outcome of the NOS teaching unit was defined as devel-
oping NOS perceptions associated with scientific literacy.
For this purpose, we chose socio-scientific issues arising
from genetics to utilize them as a context for students to
enhance scientific literacy through reflections on NOS in
a context-sensitive manner (Lederman, Antink, & Bartos,
2014). The socio-scientific emphasis in the teaching ma-
terial made it necessary to provide a broader perspective
including domain-general and domain-specific NOS
aspects. In the FRA, we found a systematic approach to
expand the general consensus view to domain-specific
NOS aspects. We used FRA as a framing tool to embed
domain-general NOS aspects into the socio-scientific
context (Erduran & Dagher, 2014; Dagher & Erduran, 2016);
Correspondingly, we emphasised the entanglement of do-
main-general notions claimed by the general consensus
view with the FRA categories to exemplify the intercon-
nections of the dierent representations of NOS aspects
(McDonald, 2017). In addition, we used the FRA wheel as a
visualization tool to structure science stories in a holistic
and contextualized manner (see also Erduran, 2017).
In students’ tutorial work, we made in particular pos-
itive experiences with the FRA wheel (Erduran & Dagher,
2014). The self-regulated learning exercises showed that
the wheel categories were easy to understand and easy to
deploy to science stories relevant to highly conflictual so-
cio-scientific issues such as the scientific battle of detect-
ing the DNA structure or, more recently, the modification
of the DNA by gene editing tools.
From our perspective, the presented NOS teaching unit
utilising socio-scientific issues as a context for enhancing
student reflection on basic (domain-general) NOS under-
standing associated with scientific literacy was suitable.
The explicit NOS instruction during the lecture opened
the students’ minds towards a first understanding of the
epistemology of science, while the application of the FRA
wheel embedded genetics in its socio-scientific frame
and finally provided a more complete picture of dierent
and interdependent contexts being aected by science.
However, we wanted to evaluate the impact of the
newly-designed teaching unit by applying a standardized
procedure to investigate students’ initial NOS under-
standing (before the NOS teaching unit started) and right
aer it was finished. We chose the established and tested
SUSSI questionnaire (Liang et al., 2008) that represents
all the relevant domain-general NOS perceptions that
are – according to the general consensus – supposed to
be included in science curricula (e.g. Osborne, Collins,
Ratclie, Millar & Duschl, 2003). The intent here was to
assess the newly designed learning pathway that aims at
enhancing domain-general NOS perspectives by focus-
sing on socio-scientific issues in genetics. We assumed
that the students’ NOS understanding would benefit
from the introduction of the FRA as a frame for analysing
general-specific NOS aspects against the backdrop of
their context-sensitiveness. However, it was not a focus of
our survey to evaluate or score the impact of FRA on the
consensus perspective, as we focused on the evaluation
of the domain-general NOS aspects.
The results of the pre-survey demonstrate more basic
NOS understanding than previously expected. Prior NOS
knowledge may contribute to that, as 32% of the survey
participants indicate that they have heard of NOS in
school or university before. However, the dierence in
this group’s performance is not statistically significant
in any single item, compared to the students who don’t
report having prior NOS knowledge. Hence, prior NOS ex-
periences don’t seem to have any eect on the students’
preconceptions.
Despite the uncertainty concerning clarity of denomi-
nation, the pre-survey shows in detail that the participants
hold dierent perceptions regarding elements of the gen-
eral-domain NOS concept. In particular, the statements
referring to the change of scientific theories reach secure
responses (up to 99%). NOS corresponding responses
regarding social and cultural influences on science are
also notable. Here, scores are very homogeneous with
an average of 60 to 70%. For example, the statement that
cultural values and expectations determine what science
is has the highest approval (73%).
However, a clear gap of understanding appears in the
item section on theories versus laws: The relationship of
environment, law, and theory in genetics seems not to
be understood in terms of the production of scientific
knowledge. This misunderstanding goes together with
the contradictory results on subjective influencing fac-
tors, where less than the half of the participants explicitly
reject the statement that scientists would not use their
imagination and creativity because these can interfere
with objectivity.
Taken together, the results of the pre-survey suggest
Petersen, Herzog, Bath, & Fleißner
/ Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education
10 / 13
that correct and incorrect perceptions of the core ele-
ments of the consensus on NOS concept can co-exist in
the minds of the students. Even though positivism and
objectivity seem to be at the core of students’ scientific
self-understanding, what science is (and how it is per-
formed) is accepted by the majority as culturally and
socially driven.
Our conclusions regarding the NOS understanding of
German science students enrolled in a bachelor course on
genetics confirm conclusions of the few studies that have
examined the NOS ideas of undergraduate science majors
in the U.S. Using the SUSSI questionnaire, Desaulniers
Miller and her colleagues (Desaulniers Miller, Montplaisir,
Oerdahl, Cheng, & Ketterling, 2010), for example, found
relatively informed views of scientific theory and relative-
ly uninformed views of the distinction between scientific
theories and laws among biology majors (see also Liu &
Tsai, 2008). Our results also correspond to previous study
results concluding that natural science majors recognize
the authority of objectivity and proof in creating valid,
sustained, and hence, true knowledge (Ryder & Leach,
1999; Dagher & BouJaoude, 1997; Parker, Krockover,
Lasher-Trapp & Eichinger, 2008). Accordingly, when
scientific knowledge is out in the world, the surveyed
students in our and other survey(s) believe that it exists
independently of scientific discovery.
The post-survey conducted with the identical SUSSI
questionnaire with Likert scale items four weeks aer
the pre-survey demonstrates high learning eects on the
students’ NOS understanding. Compared to the pre-sur-
vey, the number of answers displaying NOS understand-
ing increase up to 20% throughout the questionnaire.
Statistically significant are responses showing the in-
crease in NOS understanding in 14 out of 24 items. In total,
these represent 58,3% of the items allocated throughout
sections 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. The students have, therefore, in-
ternalised the contextualization of science and research.
The Likert scores in particular suggest that research is rec-
ognized as a process that permanently takes place under
subjective, social, and cultural influences.
This result is contrary to two studies investigating
the NOS views of undergraduate majors in math and
physics, where the students especially struggled with
the subjective, social, and cultural dimensions more than
others (Shi & Wang, 2017; Hanuscin, Akerson & Phillipson-
Mower, 2006). In particular, Shi and Wang (2017) make up
a societal-driven argument: Chinese students struggle
with the paradox of whether science is objective or sub-
jective, because the predominance of Marxist dialectical
materialism favours a belief in the material world and in
science’s objectivity in discovering it.
In our study, in contrast, the comparison between
pre- and post-testing demonstrates that scientific aims
and values in terms of objectivity as the authority of natu-
ral science research is increasingly at stake aer the NOS
teaching unit. So, nearly 90% of the post-test participants
reject the statement that scientists are objective in terms
of making the same observations; nearly 80% reject the
statement that scientists are not influenced by society
and culture because they are trained to conduct pure, un-
biased studies; and nearly 70% of the students reject the
statement that scientists do not use their imagination and
creativity because these can interfere with objectivity.
Compared to the aims and values of scientific research,
the post-test participants still have more diiculties in
acknowledging the contextualization of scientifically
achieved knowledge in the form of data, theories, and
laws. Even though these items altogether show increase
compared to pre-test results, the section of scientific
theory change, and therefore of the provisional nature
of theory, does not notably profit from the NOS teaching
unit. The results regarding the relation of environment,
theory, and law shows some, but weak and not statistical-
ly relevant, increase. Maybe this uncertainty reflects the
students’ wish for scientific knowledge, detached from
the contextualized research process, to retain its facticity.
This desire corresponds with the increasing uncertainty of
assessing currently available ‘post factual’ information on
socio-scientific issues in genetics.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The evaluation of the undergraduate NOS teaching
unit reveals that the newly designed learning pathway
was able to reach incorrect or weak preconceptions re-
garding NOS understanding associated with scientific lit-
eracy. We assume that the exclusive-reflective approach
chosen has the potential to inform a NOS understanding
that also communicate the complexity of socio-scien-
tific issues in today’s post-truth era. The statistically
significant increase in 58,3% of the items reflect striking
changes in the students’ perceptions of various elements
of the domain-general NOS conception. However, the
detailed analysis of the results has shown that some pre-
conceptions are not as amenable to change as others. In
particular, the assumed facticity of scientific knowledge
seems to be a powerful preconception that is much more
fixed than the contextualization of scientific discovery.
This might suggest that powerful preconceptions are
more resistant because they correspond with the sci-
entific self-understanding. Hence, they are more deeply
internalised and more implicit than others (e.g. Chen et
al., 2013). However, more research on the internalization
and learning processes of NOS knowledge is necessary to
shape NOS teaching correspondingly.
Petersen, Herzog, Bath, & Fleißner
/ Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education
11 / 13
This study gives an example of an exclusive-reflective
teaching approach emphasising the socio-scientific frame
that may be transferable to other biology and biotech-
nology majors in the beginning of their bachelor studies.
Finally, we want to emphasise that this study took place
at a German university. Up until now, empirical data have
mainly originated from the American and Asian university
context with long NOS teaching traditions at university.
By comparison, German universities are an interesting
field of study as no national science education standards
for university education are available yet. Hence, teaching
and researching on students NOS perceptions at German
university have dierent presuppositions than in the
countries previously in focus.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the students for participating in the NOS
teaching unit and the surveys as well as the teach4TU
team at the Universität Braunschweig for their excellent
support, in particular Lisa Dornieden, Susanne Sandau,
Katharina Zickwolf and Ute Zaepernick-Rothe.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
authors.
REFERENCES
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2006). Over and over again: college students’
views of nature of science. In L.B. Flick & N. G. Lederman
(Eds.), Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science: Implications
for Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education (pp. 389- 426).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and about nature of
science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science &
Education, 22(9), 2087-2107.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The na-
ture of science and instructional practice: Making the un-
natural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417- 436.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G., (2000). Improving science
teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical re-
view of the literature. International Journal of Science Edu-
cation, 22, 665 -701.
Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. S. (2005). ‘‘How should I
know what scientists do?—I am just a kid’’: Fourth-grade
students’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Ele-
mentary Science Education, 17(1), 1-11.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
(2007). Atlas of science literacy. Vol. 2. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Bybee, R. W., & McCrae, B. J. (2011). Scientific literacy and stu-
dent attitudes: Perspectives from PISA 2006 Science, Inter-
national Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 7-26.
Chen, S., Chang, W.-H., Lieu, S.-C ., Kao, H.-L., Huang, M.-T., &Lin,
S.-F. (2013). Development of an empirically based question-
naire to investigate young students’ ideas about nature of
science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(4). 408-
430.
Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of
conceptual change: Considerations for eective nature of
science instruction. Science & Education, 15(5), 463-494.
Campanile, M. F., Lederman, N. G. & Kampourakis, K. (2015).
Mendelian genetics as a platform for teaching about nature
of science and scientific inquiry. Science & Education, 24,
205 -225.
Dagher, Z. R., & BouJaoude, S. (1997). Scientific views and reli-
gious beliefs of college students: The case of biological evo-
lution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 429-445.
Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the Na-
ture of Science for Science Education: Why Does it Matter?.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 147-164.
De Castro, M. (2016). Johann Gregor Mendel: Paragon of exper-
imental science. Molecular Genetics and Genomics Medicine,
4(1), 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.199
Desaulniers Miller, M. C., Montplaisir, L. M., Oerdahl, E. G.,
Cheng, F.-C., & Ketterling, G. L. (2010). Comparison of views
of the nature of science between natural science and non-
science majors. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 9, 45-54.
Dogan, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish grade 10 stu-
dents’ and science teachers’ conceptions of nature of sci-
ence: A national study. Journal of Research in Science Teach-
ing, 45(10), 1083-1112.
Erduran S. (2017). Visualizing the nature of science: Beyond
textual pieces to holistic images in science education. In K.
Hahl, K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, A . Uitto & J. Lavonen (eds), Cog-
nitive and Aective Aspects in Science Education Research.
Contributions from Science Education Research, vol 3. (pp.
15-30). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-58685-4_2
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of
science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices
and other family categories. Dordrecht: Springer.
Erduran, S., Dagher, Z.R. & McDonald, C.V. (2019). Contributions
of the family resemblance approach to nature of science in
science education. Science & Education 28, 311-328, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00052-2
Erduran, S., Kaya, E., & Dagher, Z. (2018). From lists in pieces to
coherent wholes: Nature of science, scientific practices, and
science teacher education. In J. Yeo, T. W. Teo & K. S. Tang
(Eds.), Research and Practice in the Asia-Pacific Region (pp.3-
24), Dordrecht: Springer.
Erduran, S., Kaya, E., & Avraamidou, L. (in press). Does research
on nature of science and social justice intersect? Exploring
theoretical and practical convergence for science educa-
tion. In H. Yacoubian & L. Hansson (Eds.), Nature of Science
for Social Justice. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hanuscin, D. L., Akerson, V. L., & Phillipson-Mower, T. (2006).
Integrating nature of science instruction into a physical sci-
ence content course for preservice elementary teachers:
NOS views of teaching assistants. Science Education, 90(5),
912–935.
Howe, E. M. (2007). Addressing nature-of-science core tenets
with the history of science: An example with sickle-cell ane-
mia & malaria. American Biology Teacher, 69 (8), 467-472.
Howe, E. M., & Rudge, D. W. (2005). Recapitulating the history of
sickle-cell anemia research: Improving students’ NOS views
Petersen, Herzog, Bath, & Fleißner
/ Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education
12 / 13
explicitly and reflectively. Science & Education, 14(3–5), 423-
441.
Ibrahim, B., Buler, A., & Lubben, F. (2009). Profiles of freshman
physics students’ views on the nature of science. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 46, 248-264.
Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature
of science in context. Science Education, 84(1), 5-26.
Irzik, G. & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science
research. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of
research in history, philosophy and science teaching (999-
1021). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2005). Examining stu-
dents’ views on the nature of science: Results from Korean
6th, 8th, and 10th graders. Science & Education, 89(2), 314-
334.
Kaya, E. & Erduran, S. (2016). From FRA to RFN, or how the fam-
ily resemblance approach can be transformed for science
curriculum analysis on nature of science. Science & Educa-
tion, 25(9), 1115-1133.
Kampourakis, K. (2016). The “general aspects” conceptual-
ization as a pragmatic and eective means to introducing
students to nature of science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 53(5), 667-682.
Khishfe, R. (2008). The development of seventh graders’ views
of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
45(4), 470–496.
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 Re-
search in Science Teaching, 39, 551-578.
Kim, S. Y., & Irving, K. E. (2010). History of science as an instruc-
tional context: Student learning in genetics and nature of
science. Science & Education, 19(2), 187–215.
Laugksch, R. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview.
Science Education, 84(1), 71–94.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of
the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
Lederman, N. G. (200 6). Syntax of nature of science within inqui-
ry 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. 301-318).
Dordrecht: Springer.
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. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ/
London: Erlbaum.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R.
S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire (VNOS):
Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ con-
ceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.
Lederman, N. G., Antink, A. & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of sci-
ence, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising
from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically liter-
ate citizenry. Science & Education, 23, 285-302.
Lederman, N.G., Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching
and learning of nature of science. In N.G. Lederman, & S. K.
Abell (Eds.). Handbook of research on science education (Vol.
2, pp. 600-620). New York: Routledge.
Lederman, J., Lederman, N., Bartels, S., Jimenez, J. (2019). An
international collaborative investigation of beginning sev-
enth grade students’ understandings of scientific inqui-
ry: Establishing a baseline. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 2019, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21512
Liang, L. L., Chen, S., Chen, X., Kaya, O. N., Adams, A. D., Mack-
lin, M., & Ebenezer, J. (2008). Assessing preservice elemen-
tary teachers’ views on the nature of scientific knowledge:
a dual-response instrument. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science
Learning and Teaching, 9, 1–20.
Lin, H.-S., & Chen, C.-C. (2002). Promoting preservice chem-
istry teachers’ understanding about the nature of science
through history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
39(9), 773–792.
Liu, S., & Tsai, C. (2008). Dierences in the scientific epistemo-
logical views of undergraduate students. International Jour-
nal of Science and Education, 30, 1055–1073.
Matthews, M. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of sci-
ence (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In M. S. Khine (Ed.),
Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3-26). Dordrecht:
Springer.
McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of
science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The
nature of science in science education: Rationales and strate-
gies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
McComas, W. F. (2017). Understanding how science works: The
nature of science as the foundation for science teaching and
learning. School Science Review, 98(365), 71-76.
McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in
international science education standard documents. In W.
F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education:
Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
McDonald, C.V. (2017). Exploring representations of nature of
science in australian junior secondary school science text-
books: A case s tudy of genetics. In C. V. McDonald & F. Abd-El-
Khalick (eds.), Representations of nature of science in school
science textbooks: A global perspective (pp. 98-117). London:
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315650524-5
Mendel, G. (1866). Versuche über Pflanzen-Hybriden: Verhan-
dlungen des Naturforschenden Vereines in Brunn [Experi-
ments in Plant Hybridisation. Paper for the Brünn Natural
History So ciety]. Retrieved from www.esp.org/foundations/
genetics/classical/gm-65-f.pdf
Metz, D., Klassen, S., McMillan, B., Clough, M., & Olson, J. (2007).
Building a foundation for the use of historical narratives.
Science & Education, 16(3–5), 313-334.
Michel, H., & Neumann, I. (2017). Nature of science and science
content learning: The relation between students’ nature of
science understanding and their learning about the concept
of energy. Science & Education, 25(9-10), 951-975.
Neumann, K., Kauertz, A., & Fischer, H. E. (2010). From PISA to
standards - the impact of large scale assessments on sci-
ence education research in Germany. International Journal
of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 545-563.
Niaz, M. (2009). Critical appraisal of physical science as a human
enterprise: Dynamics of scientific progress. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer.
Organization for Economic and Co-operation and Develop-
ment (OECD). (2017). PISA 2015 technical report. Paris: OECD
Publishing.
Petersen, Herzog, Bath, & Fleißner
/ Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education
13 / 13
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratclie, 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(7), 692-720.
Paraskevopoulou, E., & Koliopoulos, D. (2011). Teaching the na-
ture of science through the Millikan-Ehrenha dispute. Sci-
ence & Education, 20(10), 943–960.
Parker, L. C., Krockover, G. H., Lasher-Trapp, S., & Eichinger,
D. C. (2008). Ideas about the nature of science held by un-
dergraduate atmospheric science students. Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society, 89, 1681-1688.
Rose, D. (2018). Avoiding a post-truth world: Embracing
post-normal conservation. Conservation and Society, 16(4),
518-524.
Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2009). An explicit and reflective ap-
proach to the use of history to promote understanding of
the nature of science. Science & Education, 18, 561–580.
Ryder, J., & J. Leach (1999). University science students’ expe-
riences of investigative project work and their images of
science. International Journal of Science and Education, 21,
945-956.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientif-
ic issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.
Schulz, R. M. (2014). Philosophy of education and science edu-
cation: a vital but underdeveloped relationship. In M.R. Mat-
thews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history,
philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1259-1316). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Schwartz, R. S., & Crawford, B. A. (2006). Authentic scientific in-
quiry as context for teaching nature of science: Identifying
critical elements for success. In L. B. Flick, & N. G. Lederman
(Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science. Implications
for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 331-356).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der
Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [KMK ]. (2005a). Bil-
dungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Schulab-
schluss (Jahrgangsstufe 10). Neuwied: Luchterhand.
Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der
Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [KMK]. (2005b).
Bildungsstandards im Fach Chemie für den Mittleren Schulab-
schluss (Jahrgangsstufe 10). Neuwied: Luchterhand.
Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der
Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [KMK]. (2005c).
Bildungsstandards im Fach Physik für den Mittleren Schulab-
schluss (Jahrgangsstufe 10). Neuwied: Luchterhand.
Shi, W.-Z., & Wang, J. (2017). Comparison on views of nature of
science between math and physics students. Journal of Bal-
tic Science Education, 16(1), 77-85.
Tao, P. K. (2003). Eliciting and developing junior secondary
students’ understanding of the nature of science through
a peer collaboration instruction in science stories. Interna-
tional Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 147–171.
Teixeira, E. S., Greca, I. M., & Freire, O. (2012). The history and
philosophy of science in physics teaching: A research syn-
thesis of didactic inter ventions. Science & Education, 21, 771-
796.
Watson, J. D., Crick, F. H. (1953). Molecular structure of nucleic
acids; a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature, 171,
737-738.
Wolfensberger, B., & Canella, C. (2015). Cooperative learning
about nature of science with a case from the history of sci-
ence. International Journal of Environmental and Science Ed-
ucation, 10(6), 865-889.
