Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 7, Issue 2, Article 10 (Dec., 2006)
Behiye AKCAY
The analysis of how to improve student understanding of the nature of science: A role of teacher

Previous Contents Next

Research indicate that teacher conceptions of NOS do not affect their instructional strategies that they use

Researchers have indicated that the relationship between teachers’ conceptions of the NOS and their classroom practices is more complex than originally assumed. In fact, the relationship between teachers’ conceptions and their actual classroom practices is far from being direct or simple (Bell et al., 2000; Lederman & Zeidler, 1987; Abd-El-Khalick et al., 1998; Lederman, 1999; Lederman, 1986; Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000). Several factors have been shown to mediate and constrain the translation of conceptions concerning NOS and teaching practice.  These factors are:

Lederman and Zeidler (1987) state that teachers’ classroom behaviors are not directly influenced by their conceptions of the NOS. In addition, their study showed that many of the classroom variables used for teacher comparisons are significantly related to changes in students’ conceptions of the NOS. The results of this investigation indicate that merely possessing valid conceptions of the NOS do not necessarily result in the performance of teaching behaviors which are related to improved student conceptions.

Duschl and Wright (1989) focused on how science teachers’ conceptions, beliefs, and judgments affect their pedagogical decisions. They observed and interviewed 13 science teachers in a large urban high school. The results clearly indicated that there was no relationship between teachers’ understandings of the NOS and their classroom practices.

 In 1992, Brickhouse and Bodner focused on the teaching of science and particular difficulties found in the science classroom. One of the outcomes of their study was that student reactions are an important restriction on the teacher’s behaviors. The study showed that teachers have conflicts between what they believe is desirable and what is possible within the limitations of their preparation and the institutions in which they work. Also, teachers struggle about how they prepare their curricula based on their beliefs about informal science or what they face with some institutional constrains in the classroom. 

Dickinson et al. (2000) reached interesting outcomes as a result of their study. Firstly, during interviews pre-service teachers did not speak of the role of evidence as being important nor did it affect how science differed in relationship to other disciplines. Instead, they spoke about science being a study of things, while art was subjective, or a way to “prove” something. Science was described things done to prove theories. In contrast, art was seen a way to show a picture of the world. Many pre-service science teachers do not consider the differences between theories and laws. They often believe in a hierarchical relationship between theories and laws (Palmquist & Finley, 1997; Lederman & O’Malley, 1990; Akerson et al., 2000). Others see theory as an unproven, untested, invalidated hypothesis. They report that laws arise from a theory that has been validated, tested, and documented is a truth.  Additionally, their research indicates that pre-service teachers frequently fail to recognize that scientists use their imaginations and creativity throughout scientific investigations, especially when interpreting data. Instead many respond that “a scientist only uses imagination in collecting data…But there is no creativity after data collection because the scientist has to be objective” (Dickinson et al., 2000, p. 12). Another interesting point is that many pre-service teachers believe that there is “a single scientific method” (Palmquist & Finley, 1997): “science is an academic discipline that requires the use of methods to ensure it is without bias” (Dickinson et al., 2000, p. 13).  However, most of them noted that their varying backgrounds, their theoretical commitments, and their personal views did influence the way they interpreted data (Akerson et al., 2000): “scientists probably interpret the experiments and data differently, or they may have their own pre-determined theories that cause them to view the data in other ways” (Dickinson et al., 2000, p. 16).

According to Bell et al. (2000), teachers’ conceptions of the NOS do not necessarily translate into needed classroom practices. Their results show that often participants only verbalize the importance of teaching NOS. However, their instructional objectives and assessment practices were not formally included or related to the NOS objectives.

 

Copyright (C) 2006 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 7, Issue 2, Article 10 (Dec., 2006). All Rights Reserved.