Advanced science students’ understanding on nature of science in Turkey

As expected, the results of the study showed a different pattern for the group of this study from regular high school students. Regular high school students are not informed about “tentativeness” and “subjectivity” whereas advanced science students are expert on these aspects. Khishfe and Lederman (2006), in their study, provided misunderstanding examples of common ninth grade students on the NOS aspects by using Views on Nature of Science (VNOS) questionnaire plus follow-up interview method. They studied 42 students and found that more than half of the participants presented naïve understandings on subjectivity and tentativeness by stating exchangeability and stability of scientific knowledge as opposed to the results of this study. Again, the authors showed existence of naïve beliefs about empirical science aspect among majority of the students. Similarly, distinction between observation and inference could not be made by small minority of the participants while both of the groups have certain naïve understandings about “observation and inference” aspect. In addition, majority of the participants also presented naïve understandings on creative and imaginative science aspect. The group of the present study has some differences that empirical basis aspect is partly understood despite existence of mixed understandings. Again, naïve understandings about creative and imaginative science are presented by only small minority of the group.

Similarly, Khishfe and Lederman (2007) studied 89 ninth, 40 tenth and eleventh grade students by using Views on Nature of Science (VNOS) questionnaire and follow-up interview method. In a differing way from the results of present study, many of the participants believed that scientific knowledge would not change and subjectivity would not be included in science. Similarly to the results on group of the present study, some of the participants hold naïve views on observation versus inference and creative/imaginative science aspects.

As another study with high school students, Meyling (1997), in his research, studied 737 German high school students at 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th grades. The author reported that 99% of the participants had the idea of “a verified theory becomes a law”. In similar to the results of present study, the students in Meyling’s (1997) study believe existence of a hierarchy between law and theory. What is more, the students drove a linear structure to represent pathway of scientific discovery. They ignored theory-laden science and influence of contextual and constitutive values in their thinking. This misunderstanding is also presented by the sample of present study.

In addition to the studies conducted in western culture, Kılıç, Sungur, Çakıroğlu and Tekkaya (2005) studied with 575 ninth grade students by using survey approach with Nature of Scientific Knowledge Scale (NSKS) in Turkey. They found that the participants were not certain whether the scientific knowledge is absolute or not whereas they hold informed view about creative and imaginative science. As another study conducted with Turkish high school students, Dogan and Abd-El-Khalick (2008) studied with 2087 tenth grade students using Views on Science-Technology-Society (VOSTS) instrument. They found that all of the participants presented naïve understanding about lack of hierarchical relationship between hypotheses, theories and laws whereas majority of them hold informed views about tentativeness aspect. The two studies presented above have an important place due to their sample size and culture in which the studies were conducted. These two survey studies in Turkish context showed that common high school students are different from advanced science students for the aspects of “creativity and imagination” and “tentativeness” whereas they are akin to the advanced science students for only “hierarchy between theory and law” aspect.

In conclusion, the differing factor concerning common high school students on “tentativeness” and “subjectivity” should be recognized in classroom activities. Ordinary classrooms also include advanced students, but they experience the same instruction about science and use the same sources in their studying. They clearly have potential use additional sources more efficiently, and to participate in additional programs. To provide alternatives with effective guidance might be enough to change their misunderstanding.

In experimental studies, these students should be studied with an explicit, reflective embedded strategy or in ordinary classrooms they should be separately taken into consideration in these applications. For the experimental explicit-reflective studies, advanced science students might change their misunderstandings on NOS aspects by using more effective ways than awareness-discussion-reflection way or they might change their misunderstandings by utilizing only limited components of the approach (only explicitness component might be enough for such a group). NOS teaching in ordinary classrooms might not be appropriate for advanced science students because of different understanding patterns from common students. Common misunderstandings in classrooms require differentiation in focusing on and giving importance to the certain aspects. More clearly, emphasized aspects in ordinary classrooms might not be appropriate for advanced science students.

Acknowledgements

This study was conducted by help of the administration and the students of Zonguldak Science High School. We thank to Prof. Dr. Hulya Yılmaz and Dr. Pınar Huyugüzel Cavas for their permission to use translated items of the motivation scale.