The nature of the MOSQ means that the database developed is extensive, particularly in relation to the explanatory data, and it is beyond the scope of this paper to present and discuss all the explanatory findings in detail. Therefore, this paper presents the most notable features of the explanatory data and discusses accordingly. In line with the purpose of this study science teachers’ conception of NOS are presented in three sections in terms of their conceptions of the nature of scientific knowledge, scientific inquiry and scientific enterprise.

Teachers’ conceptions of the nature of scientific knowledge

Table I presents science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of scientific knowledge. An overview of data in Table I shows that the majority of science teachers in this study held uninformed conceptions about six item statements characterising the nature of scientific knowledge. In specific, a majority of science teachers held the uninformed view about the role of hypotheses, theories and laws, in addition to the conceptions about the scientific model and open-mindedness of the scientists. On the other hand, a majority of teachers held an informed view about the tentativeness of scientific knowledge and place of imagination and creativity in the scientific knowledge development process.

Table I. Science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of scientific knowledge.

Disposition statement	Agree (%)	Uncertain (%)	Disagree (%)
Hypotheses are only developed to become theories	69.0	5.5	25.5
Scientific theories are less secure than laws	59.3	16.6	24.1
Scientific theories can be developed to become laws	73.8	17.2	9.0
Scientific knowledge cannot be changed	28.3	6.2	65.5
Accumulation of evidence makes scientific knowledge more stable	67.6	7.6	24.8
A scientific model (e.g., the atomic model) expresses a copy of reality	59.3	20.0	20.7
Scientists do not use creativity and imagination in developing scientific knowledge	26.9	14.5	58.6
Scientists are open-minded without any biases	71.7	12.4	15.9

A close look at data in Table I shows that a majority of the participants in this research (69%) agreed with the statement, “hypotheses are only developed to become theories.” Of written responses, 55.6% argued that developing hypotheses is an obligatory step for developing a theory, while 19% argued that if a hypothesis is proven to be justified by thorough experimentation, it is regarded as a theory.

A majority of science teachers (59.3%) expressed the traditional view that scientific theories are less stable than laws. A major explanation of supporting this view (47%) was that, “laws are proven fact that come from theories and cannot be altered.” It was frustrating that none of the participants expressed the equal credibility of scientific theories and laws.

Similarly, almost three-fourths of the participants agreed with the statement “scientific theories can be developed to become laws,” which indicated the teachers’ belief in “laws-are-mature-theories-fable” (Bell, et al., 2000). Of written responses, almost 60% argued that “a theory can become a law if it is proven by empirical evidence,” which indicated their uninformed conception about scientific theories and laws.

Table I also shows that a majority of the participants (65.5%) expressed the informed view about the tentativeness of scientific knowledge. A majority of the written responses (59.3%) provided to support their view stated that “scientific knowledge has a temporary status due to the rapid advancement of science and technology.” However, a good number of the participants who did not believe in the tentativeness of science (23.6%) explained that “scientific knowledge is the proven fact; so it cannot be changed.”

A majority of the participants (67.6%) held the uninformed view that the “accumulation of evidence makes scientific knowledge more stable.” However, a few participants (96) explained their view in this regard, where most (75%) expressed that “evidence is indispensable for the trustworthiness of scientific knowledge.”

Teachers’ responses on the place of creativity and imaginativeness in science revealed that a majority (58.6%) agreed. However, an interesting finding was that almost an equal number of participants agreed with the statement “a scientific model (e.g., the atomic model) expresses a copy of reality.” The credibility of this statement may somewhat be related with the creativity and imaginativeness used in science. However, we were not able to explain this inconsistent response pattern from teachers’ explanatory responses.

Most of the teachers in this research (71.7%) held an uninformed conception that scientists are open-minded without any biases. The majority of the written responses (63.5%) supported this view. One in particular reflected that “if a person possesses biases towards anything and if he is not open-minded, I would rather call him ‘superstitious’ than ‘a scientist.’”

Teachers’ conceptions of the nature of scientific inquiry

Table II presents science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of scientific inquiry.

Table II. Science teachers’ conceptions of scientific inquiry.

Disposition statement	Agree (%)	Uncertain (%)	Disagree (%)
The scientific method is a fixed step-by-step process	84.1	2.8	13.1
Science and the scientific method can answer all questions	29.0	22.8	48.2
Scientific knowledge only comes from experiments	61.4	4.1	34.5

Most of the science teachers in this study (84.1%) had an uninformed view that the scientific method is a fixed step-by-step process. A major explanation of supporting this view (61.2%) was that “science is a systematic process and that’s why it follows the recommended steps; reordering these steps could result in invalid scientific knowledge.”

Nearly half of the respondents disagreed with the statement that “science and the scientific method can answer all questions,” which may be perceived as their acknowledgement of the limitations of science. While a number of participants (22.8%) were uncertain, a good number (29%) possessed an uninformed view about this issue. Of written responses, a majority (61%) raised issues, such as treatments done by the priests (Hujur in Bengali) in Bangladesh, existence and activities of the God and angels, etc. that science cannot explain. A majority of the respondents (61.4%) expressed an uninformed view that “scientific knowledge only comes from experiments.” Many of the written responses (54.3%) exemplified this view seen in various scientific experiments (e.g., Galileo’s Experiment at the PISA tower, Galileo’s Pendulum Experiments, etc.). However, a good number of respondents (34.5%) had contemporary view in this respect, and many of their written responses reflected that more than one method can be used to develop scientific knowledge.

Teachers’ conceptions of the nature of scientific enterprise

Table III presents science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of scientific enterprise.

Table III. Science teachers’ conceptions of scientific enterprise.

Disposition statement	Agree (%)	Uncertain (%)	Disagree (%)
Science and technology are identical	51.0	9.0	40.0
Scientific enterprise is an individual enterprise	26.2	16.6	57.2
Society, politics and culture do not affect the development of scientific knowledge	30.3	13.1	56.6

More than half of the teachers agreed with the statement “science and technology are identical.” Written responses of these participants revealed that majority (59.2%) had uninformed conception that “technology is applied science.”

A majority of the teachers in this research (57.2%) expressed their informed view about scientific enterprise by disagreeing with the statement “scientific enterprise is an individual enterprise.” A major explanation of supporting this view (69.7%) was that “a group of scientists usually work on a project; collaboration among them therefore is necessary for the project.”

More than half of the participant teachers (56.6%) believed that society, politics and culture affect the development of scientific knowledge. Of the written responses, many of them exemplified that geocentrism was once established as an influence of socio-religious perspectives.