Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research
ISSN (Print): 1949-4270 - ISSN (Online): 1949-4289

Original article    |    Open Access
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2021, Vol. 16(3) 272-298

STEM-Based NOS Teaching on 7th Grade Students’ NOS Views

Günkut Mesci & Eda Erdaş Kartal

pp. 272 - 298   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2021.373.14

Publish Date: September 20, 2021  |   Number of Views: 587  |  Number of Download: 943

PDF Download

Abstract

The aim of the study is to improve students’ nature of science understandings while integrating nature of science aspects into appropriate science-technology-engineering-mathematics (STEM) activities. In this study, four STEM-based contextualized nature of science activities are developed during the 4 weeks study. The sample of this study consists of eighteen 7th grade students. The data are collected the views of nature of science questionnaires (VNOS-D), follow-up interviews, and classroom observations. All data are analyzed holistically to create a profile of students’ views for the targeted aspects of nature of science with using content analysis. The analysis showed that 7th grade students have generally naive views of the targeted nature of science aspects before participating in the 4-week study. After STEM-based nature of science teaching, all students improved their views of nature of science. STEM-based explicit-reflective nature of science teaching may be an alternative approach to improve students’ nature of science views, and it is recommended to use this approach in the future studies.

Keywords: Science Education, Nature of Science, Scientific Literacy, STEM-Based Teaching

How to Cite this Article?

APA 7th edition
Mesci, G., & Kartal, E.E. (2021). STEM-Based NOS Teaching on 7th Grade Students’ NOS Views. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 16(3), 272-298. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2021.373.14

Harvard
Mesci, G. and Kartal, E. (2021). STEM-Based NOS Teaching on 7th Grade Students’ NOS Views. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 16(3), pp. 272-298.

Chicago 16th edition
Mesci, Gunkut and Eda Erdas Kartal (2021). "STEM-Based NOS Teaching on 7th Grade Students’ NOS Views". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 16 (3):272-298. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2021.373.14

References
  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000a). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-701.  [Google Scholar]
  2. Abd-El Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000b). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 295-317. [Google Scholar]
  3. Akerson, V. L., Burgess, A., Gerber, A., Guo, M., Khan, T. A., & Newman, S. (2018). Disentangling the meaning of STEM: implications for science education and science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(1), 1-8. [Google Scholar]
  4. Akerson, V.L., Elcan Kaynak, N., & Avsar Erumit, B. (2019) Preparing preservice early childhood teachers to teach nature of science: Writing children’s books. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 4(1). Retrieved from https://innovations.theaste.org/preparing-preservice-early-childhood-teachers-to-teach-nature-of-science-writing-childrens-books [Google Scholar]
  5. Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J., & McDuffie, A. R. (2005). One course is not enough: pre-service elementary teachers’ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2),194–213. [Google Scholar]
  6. Akerson, V. L., Weiland, I. S., Pongsanon, K., & Nargund, V. (2010). Evidence-based strategies for teaching nature of science to young children. Journal of Kırsehir Education, 11(4), 61-78. [Google Scholar]
  7. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542. [Google Scholar]
  8. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.  [Google Scholar]
  9. Mesci, G. (2016). Preservice science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for nature of science and nature of scientific inquiry: A successful case study. PhD dissertation, Western Michigan University, USA. http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/1606 [Google Scholar]
  10. Mesci, G., & Schwartz, R. S. (2017). Changing preservice science teachers’ views of nature of science: why some conceptions may be more easily altered than others. Research in Science Education. 47(2), 329-351., Doi: 10.1007/s11165-015-9503-9 [Google Scholar]
  11. Mesci, G. (2020). The influence of PCK based NOS teaching on pre-service science teachers’ NOS views. Science & Education. Doi: 10.1007/s11191-020-00117-7 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bell R. L., Mulvey, B. K., & Maeng, J. L. (2016). Outcomes of nature of science instruction along a context continuum: preservice secondary science teachers’ conceptions and instructional intentions. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 493-520. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30-33. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bennett, R.E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5-25. [Google Scholar]
  15. Breiner, J., Harkness, S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3-11. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National academy press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Canbazoglu-Bilici, S. & Unal, A. (2015). Integration of media design processes in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 15(60), 221-240. [Google Scholar]
  18. Capps, D., & Crawford, B.A. (2013). Inquiry-based Instruction and Teaching about Nature of Science: Are They Happening? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 497-526.  [Google Scholar]
  19. Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 15(5), 463-494. [Google Scholar]
  20. Clough, M. P. (2018). Teaching and learning about the nature of science. Science & Education, 27, 1-5.  [Google Scholar]
  21. Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.  [Google Scholar]
  22. Çorlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M. & Capraro, M. M. (2014). Introducing STEM education: implications for educating our teachers for the age of innovation. Education and Science, 39 (171), 74-85.  [Google Scholar]
  23. Derin, G., Aydın, E., & Kırkıç, K. A. (2017). A scale on the attitudes towards STEM education. El-Cezeri Journal of Science and Engineering, 4(3), 547-559. [Google Scholar]
  24. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing Nature of Science for Science Education (pp. 1-18). Springer Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gökbayrak, S., & Karışan, D. (2017). Exploration of sixth grade students’ views on STEM based activities. Journal of Field Education Researches, 3(1), 25-40. [Google Scholar]
  26. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.   [Google Scholar]
  27. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7-8), 591-607. [Google Scholar]
  28. Karakaş, M. (2017). Turkish students’ views on nature of science. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(10), 176-183. [Google Scholar]
  29. Keçeci, G., Alan, B., & Kırbağ-Zengin, F. (2017). STEM education practices with 5th grade students. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 18(1), 1-17. [Google Scholar]
  30. 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 Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578. [Google Scholar]
  31. Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4) 395-418.  [Google Scholar]
  32. Kruse, J., Kent-Schneider, İ., Zacharski, K., & Rockefeller, M. (2019). Investigating the effect of NOS question type on students’ not responses. Paper Presented at the 2019 Annual Conference of the Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE) in Savannah, GA. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abel & N. G. Lederman (Eds.). Handbook of research on science education, (pp. 831– 879). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  34. Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire (VNOS): Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497-521.  [Google Scholar]
  35. Lederman, J. S., & Khishfe, R. (2002). Views of nature of science, Form D. Unpublished paper. Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2012). Nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry: Building instructional capacity through professional development. In Fraser, B. J., Tobin, K. G., & McRobbie, C. J. (Eds.). Second International Handbook of Science Education, (p. 335) Springer International Handbooks of Education 24, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_24, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lederman, N., & Lederman, J. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. Lederman and S. Abell (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Science Education, (pp. 600-620). New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  38. Lederman, J. S., & Stefanich, G. P. (2006). Addressing disabilities in the context of inquiry and nature of science instruction. In L.B. Flick & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 55-74). Springer, Dordrecht. [Google Scholar]
  39. McDonald, C. V., & McRobbie, C. J. (2012). Utilising argumentation to teach nature of science. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 969–986). Dordrecht: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  40. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry, My Education Lab Series. Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  41. Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2013; 2018). İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı [Primary education institutions’ science instruction program]. Ankara, Turkey: Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.  [Google Scholar]
  42. Murphy, C., Smith, G., & Broderick, N. (2019). A Starting Point: Provide Children Opportunities to Engage with Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science. Research in Science Education, 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9825-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  43. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies. http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards. Accessed 21 October 2013.   [Google Scholar]
  44. Olson, J.K. (2018). The inclusion of the nature of science in nine recent international science education standards documents. Science & Education, 27, 637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-9993-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  45. Özer, F., Doğan, N., Yalaki, Y., Irez, S., & Çakmakci, G. (2019). The ultimate beneficiaries of continuing professional development programs: Middle school students’ nature of science views. Research in Science Education, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9824-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  46. Park, H., Nielsen, W., & Woodruff, E. (2014). Students’ conceptions of the nature of science: perspectives from Canadian and Korean middle school students. Science & Education, 23 (5), 1169-1196. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ricks, M. M. (2006). A study of the impact of an informal science education program on middle school students’ science knowledge, science attitude, STEM high school and college course selections, and career decisions. [Doctoral Thesis. The University of Texas]. [Google Scholar]
  48. Schwartz, R. S. (2007). Beyond evolution: a thematic approach to teaching NOS in an undergraduate biology course. Proceedings of the international conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. April 15–18. [Google Scholar]
  49. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610-645. [Google Scholar]
  50. Tseng, K. H., Chang, C. C, Lou, Ş. J. & Chen W. P. (2013). Attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in a project-based learning (PjBL) environment. International Journal Technology Design Education, 23, 87-102.  [Google Scholar]
  51. Yamak, H., Bulut, N., & Dündar, S. (2014). The impact of STEM activities on 5th grade students’ scientific process skills and their attitudes towards science. Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 34(2), 249- 265.   [Google Scholar]
  52. Yager, R.E., & Brunkhorst, H. (2014). Exemplary STEM programs: Designs for success. Virginia USA: NSTA Press, National Science Teachers Association. [Google Scholar]
Meta
Vol. 16 (3)
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 16 Issue 3

September 2021

All Manuscript

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research

Copyright © 2025 Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. CC BY
All elements of this website were created using the BOQ™ - Intelligent Webverse System.