Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 7, Issue 1, Foreword (June, 2006) Norman G. LEDERMAN Research on Nature of Science: Reflections on the Past, Anticipations of the Future Previous Contents Next

What Has the Research Shown?

Although nature of science has been recognized as an important instructional objective since the early 1900s, systematic research really did not begin until the late 1950s/early 1960s. Generally, the research was pursued with the following sequence of foci:

• Research on students' conceptions
• Research on curriculum
• Research on teachers' conceptions
• Research on attempts to improve teachers' conceptions
• Research on the relative effectiveness of various instructional practices

The initial research was quite descriptive and simply tried to assess whether science instruction had been successful with respect to improving students' conceptions. The results were disappointing and lead to the conclusion that students' poor understandings must be the result of a lack of curricular attention to nature of science. Hence, much effort was placed on the development of curriculum. The results were mixed, some curricula worked for some teachers and not for others. Many conjectured that the teacher was a critical factor and so much descriptive research was completed to assess teachers' understandings. The assumption was that a teacher could not be expected to teach what he/she did not understand. Unfortunately, the focus on the teacher initially did not consider what the teacher did instructionally as opposed to what the teacher knew about nature of science. It was assumed that there was a direct relationship between teachers' and students' understandings of nature of science and between a teacher's understandings and his/her instructional behavior. These assumptions guided research nature of science throughout the 1970s and early 1980s. Both assumptions were found to be invalid (Lederman, 1986) and the current view is that teachers' knowledge is necessary, but not sufficient for improving students' conceptions of nature of science.

Initially, research that focused on teachers' instructional behaviors assumed that if students were engaged in scientific activities (e.g., inquiry) they would come to understand nature of science implicitly. This third assumption did not prove to be valid as the research in the 1990s and early 2000s clearly indicates that students and teachers best learn nature of science if it is presented in a reflective, explicit manner. That is, nature of science needs to be taught in the same manner as other more traditional cognitive outcomes. It is important to note that “explicit” is not synonymous with “direct” instruction. In this sense, “explicit” refers to instructional approaches that make aspects of nature of science visible in the classroom. That is, students are engaged in discussions that ask them to reflect on what they did during investigations and what implications these activities have for the resulting knowledge and conclusions. Obviously, engaging students in scientific investigations in a very fruitful context for improving students' conceptions of nature of science, but simply having them do investigations without explicit reflections is not effective.

The review of research in the new Handbook presents a detailed summary of individual research investigations. In summary, however, after approximately 50 years of research on nature of science, the following generalizations can be made:  

• K-12 students do not typically possess “adequate” conceptions of NOS.
• K-12 teachers do not typically possess “adequate” conceptions of NOS.
• Conceptions of NOS are best learned through explicit, reflective instruction as opposed to implicitly through experiences with simply “doing” science.
• Teachers' conceptions of NOS are not automatically and necessarily translated into classroom practice.
• Teachers do not regard NOS as an instructional outcome of equal status with that of “traditional” subject matter outcomes.

---

Copyright (C) 2006 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 7, Issue 1, Foreword (June, 2006). All Rights Reserved.