International Journal of Science Education

ISSN: 0950-0693 (Print) 1464-5289 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Teaching Nature of Science through children’s

literature: an early childhood preservice teacher
study

Valarie L. Akerson, Banu Avsar Erumit & Naime Elcan Kaynak

To cite this article: Valarie L. Akerson, Banu Avsar Erumit & Naime Elcan Kaynak (2019)
Teaching Nature of Science through children’s literature: an early childhood preservice
teacher study, International Journal of Science Education, 41:18, 2765-2787, DOI:
10.1080/09500693.2019.1698785

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1698785

Published online: 06 Dec 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1444

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 13 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsed20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION
2019, VOL. 41, NO. 18, 2765–2787
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1698785

Teaching Nature of Science through children’s literature: an

early childhood preservice teacher study
a b
Valarie L. Akerson , Banu Avsar Erumit and Naime Elcan Kaynakc
a
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN USA; bSchool of Education,
Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Cayeli, Turkey; cSchool of Education, Erciyes University, Talas, Turkey

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study incorporated Nature of Science (NOS) within children’s Received 7 August 2018
literature in a science methods course to aid preservice early Accepted 25 November 2019
childhood teachers in improving their NOS understandings and
KEYWORDS
abilities to transfer NOS into formats accessible to early childhood Early childhood; preservice
students. Through a qualitative research design, researchers teachers; Nature of Science;
collected data including pre and post VNOS-B responses, lesson literacy connections;
plans, lesson reflections, and copies of NOS children’s books children’s books
developed by preservice early childhood teachers. The instructor
modelled use of children’s literature, debriefing of inquiry lessons,
and reflection to teach young children about NOS. Results showed
that preservice teachers not only refined their conceptions of NOS,
but were able to conceptualise ways to teach NOS to young
children. They were able to plan, deliver, and reflect upon their
teaching, and design a children’s picture book to teach about NOS.
The researchers found nearly all of the preservice teachers
portrayed NOS aspects accurately through their stories, and the
stories could introduce these NOS ideas to early childhood
students. The preservice early childhood teachers refined their own
understandings of NOS through the assignment. Incorporating
children’s literature and reflective writing seems a powerful tool for
teaching about NOS to early childhood teachers, and to portray
NOS to early childhood students.

Nature of Science (NOS) is a crucial component of scientific literacy. Reform documents

such as the Next Generation Science Standards (Achieve, 2013) and the National Science
Teachers Association position statement on NOS (2000) in the United States suggest that
teachers of all grade levels help K-12 students develop an informed understanding of NOS
as a component of developing scientific literacy. Research has shown that for students to
learn NOS teachers must have a good understanding of it and of how to teach it (Akerson,
Cullen, & Hanson, 2009). Research has found that through appropriate instruction preser-
vice early childhood teachers can improve their understandings of NOS, and in some cases
transfer their understandings to classroom instruction with support (e.g. Akerson &
Volrich, 2006). Studies have shown that preservice and inservice early childhood teachers
can develop strategies for emphasising NOS that improve student understandings of NOS
(e.g. Conley, Pintrich, Vekiri, & Harrison, 2004; Deng, Chen, Tsai, & Chai, 2011).

CONTACT Valarie L. Akerson [email protected] Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Indiana University,
201 North Rose Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2766 V. L. AKERSON ET AL.

Akerson and colleagues (Akerson, Buck, Donnelly, Nargund, & Weiland, 2011;
Akerson, Carter, Pongsnon, & Nargund-Joshi, 2019) found that using children’s literature
is one effective strategy for emphasising NOS to elementary students. Additionally, science
methods course instructors agree that early childhood preservice teachers enjoy using chil-
dren’s literature in their instruction, and using children’s books within science methods
courses can help preservice early childhood teachers improve their experiences within
science methods and see how their strengths in literature can connect to science instruc-
tion (Akerson & Hanuscin, 2007). However, preservice teachers can be frustrated at the
absence of children’s books to introduce NOS aspects. Most children’s literature books
either implicitly address NOS, or very rarely do so explicitly (Brunner & Abd-El-
Khalick, 2017). It grew apparent to the researchers that a way to support the preservice
teachers in their understandings of NOS, and their wishes to teach it to early childhood
students, they could be supported in developing their own children’s books to use with
students. Writing and designing children’s books can help preservice teachers not only
refine their own understandings of NOS aspects, but consider how to introduce these
ideas to students through their stories. These stories can support the teaching of NOS
through hands-on activities in the classroom.
To prepare the preservice early childhood teachers to develop such a book, they needed
to understand (a) NOS, and (b) ways to translate their NOS ideas to formats they believed
would be accessible to early childhood students. NOS was a theme in the course, included
in each class session, and debriefed in the context of science content that was explored as
examples of instructional methods for elementary students. These instructional methods
were connected with literacy components of writing, talking, listening, speaking, and chil-
dren’s literature. The purpose of this study was to explore incorporating NOS within lit-
eracy instruction in a science methods course to aid preservice teachers in improving their
NOS understandings and their abilities to transfer NOS into formats accessible to early
childhood students. Our research questions became ‘What are preservice early childhood
teachers’ NOS conceptions after participating in a science methods course that focuses on
teaching NOS through literacy?’ and ‘How are preservice early childhood teachers able to
transfer their understandings to a format they believed accessible to K-3 students through
their own written children’s literature book?’

Theoretical framework
Because we explored the preservice teachers’ knowledge of NOS, and their knowledge of
how to translate their knowledge into formats accessible by young children, we used Ped-
agogical Content Knowledge (PCK) (Shulman, 1986) as our framework. We view PCK as
teachers’ professional knowledge base that transforms subject-matter knowledge into
ways of knowing accessible to learners. We focused on whether the preservice early child-
hood teachers would be able to transform their subject-matter knowledge of NOS into a
format that their Kindergarten to second-grade students would be able to conceptualise
and comprehend. While there are several knowledge components of PCK (Magnusson,
Krajcik, & Borko, 1999) that inform the development of PCK (e.g. knowledge of learners,
knowledge of instructional strategies, knowledge of curriculum, and knowledge of assess-
ment) our focus was on how the preservice teachers transformed their content knowledge
into formats that would be accessible to young learners, which depended on their own
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 2767

content knowledge of NOS, their pedagogical knowledge for teaching NOS, and knowledge
of learners of ages 5–8 for appropriateness of material. We focused on whether they could
translate their content knowledge into formats appropriate for early childhood students, on
their NOS subject-matter knowledge, and their abilities to translate their knowledge.

Literature review
In this section, we review research on aiding preservice teachers in their abilities to teach
NOS, developing PCK for NOS instruction, and research on incorporating literacy with
science instruction.

Emphasis on Nature of Science

The following seven aspects are identified as key components of NOS and these aspects
guided our understanding of what to teach in our methods course about NOS. These
aspects were derived from Lederman (2007), and were selected to enable discussion of
the current study with prior work on preservice teacher understandings of these ideas,
and because they are the aspects recommended by the National Science Teachers Associ-
ation (NSTA, 2000) for what ideas about NOS should be taught K-12 in the United States.
The aspects include: (1) science is tentative; (2) it is based on empirical evidence; (3) there
is a distinction between observation and inference when gathering and analysing data; (4)
interpretations of the data is subjective; (5) the process and design of scientific investi-
gations requires an element of creativity; (6) there are social and cultural views embedded
in one’s interpretations; and (7) there is a difference but also a relationship between theory
and law. These aspects are also in line with NGSS (Achieve, 2013) standards.

Developing NOS conceptions and teaching strategies in methods courses

We have long known that scientific knowledge can be constructed in the science class-
room, through interactions of students with the teacher (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer,
& Scott, 1994). Previous studies explored how preservice elementary teachers can improve
their conceptions of NOS and their teaching practice. Much success can take place by
emphasising NOS explicitly in science methods courses. For example, Akerson and
Volrich (2006) explored a preservice teacher’s ability to teach NOS in her internship
setting after participating in a methods course that emphasised NOS and found she was
successful in conceptualising NOS aspects herself, and could teach these ideas to early
childhood students. It seems by participating in methods courses that explicitly emphasise
NOS ideas and teaching strategies preservice teachers can improve their NOS conceptions
and develop strategies for teaching NOS. Our study seeks to provide insights into the kinds
of conceptions and strategies for teaching NOS preservice teachers develop from partici-
pating in a methods course that incorporates NOS through literacy.

Developing NOS PCK

Previous studies have explored ways to improve teachers’ PCK for teaching NOS. Demir-
dogen and colleagues noted that the Magnusson et al. (1999)’s model of PCK has been
used in previous studies that sought to develop NOS understandings, and while it is a
2768 V. L. AKERSON ET AL.

holistic model, it is sometimes advantageous to focus on individual components of the

model when exploring PCK for NOS. In our current study, we focus on content knowledge
of NOS, pedagogical knowledge for teaching NOS, and knowledge of the learner. Demir-
dogen, Hanuscin, Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, and Koseoglu (2016) found that NOS instruc-
tion followed by pedagogical instruction framed by PCK for NOS was effective in
encouraging preservice chemistry teachers to include NOS in their instruction. We
build on that in the current study to determine how preservice early childhood teachers
translate their understandings of NOS to young children.
Furthermore, Abd-El-Khalick (2013) described the importance of developing teachers’
NOS understandings, pedagogical inquiry skills, and science content understandings as
they all influence teachers’ NOS PCK. It is important to note that teachers’ understandings
of inquiry instructional strategies, as well as the relationship of inquiry and NOS, because in
the absence of inquiry it is difficult to embed NOS explicitly. This idea is important as we
consider the preservice early childhood teachers’ understandings of NOS, their pedagogy,
and their abilities to translate NOS to young children. Generally, one would think that
these translations of NOS content would be made through connections to science content.
Author and colleagues (Akerson, Pongsanon, Park Rogers, Weiland, & Galindo, 2017)
sought to develop preservice elementary teachers’ PCK for teaching NOS through a
modified Japanese Lesson Study within a methods course that included a field experience
component. They incorporated Lesson Study as a way to help preservice teachers reflect on
their science teaching and revise lessons. During lesson study discussions they focused on
NOS ideas that were or were not present in the lesson as discussed by the preservice tea-
chers. They found that preservice teachers were able to notice when NOS could have been
taught in others’ lessons, but did not include NOS explicitly in their own lessons.
Researchers concluded that preservice teachers had developed PCK-readiness for teaching
NOS, but did not envision actually incorporating NOS in their teaching. Similarly, Hanus-
cin (2013) conducted a study to document a preservice teacher’s PCK for NOS in three
phases of a preparation programme beginning in the methods course. Hanuscin found
that PCK development for NOS teaching varied as a result of differences in knowledge
components of PCK (Magnusson et al., 1999). Hanuscin found PCK development for
NOS teaching to be difficult and time-consuming. The researcher recommended scaffold-
ing and provision of activities for teaching NOS PCK. The current approach seeks to build
on this notion to develop PCK beyond readiness, by helping them build a tool to explicitly
teach NOS to young learners.
In a study of in-service elementary teachers’ PCK for teaching NOS that also used the
Magnusson et al. (1999) model, Hanuscin and Lee (2010) explored how experienced tea-
chers transformed their NOS understandings into forms accessible to their students. The
researchers found after the three-year professional development programme, teachers
were effective at teaching NOS. The researchers studied their students’ conceptions of
NOS, and found that their conceptions improved from their teachers’ instruction. They
found that teachers translated the NOS ideas into ‘kid friendly’ language, operationally
defined NOS in the context of inquiry science lessons, and connected analogies to NOS
through children’s literature. We take from this study on experienced teachers the
success in translating NOS terms into ‘kid friendly’ language, as well as the use of
children’s literature, to aid our preservice teachers in developing children’s books that
translate NOS ideas into formats that can be accessible to young children.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 2769

Incorporating children’s literature and written reflection into science teaching

While we were not able to locate particular research on the use of children’s literature
within NOS instruction, there is ample research supporting the use of children’s literature
within science instruction. Fang (2014) discusses that children’s literature can provide
support to developing scientific literacy by engaging students in scientific ideas through
well-crafted stories, and could help students to conceptualise how science actually pro-
gresses. Similarly, Hoffman, Collins, and Schickedanz (2015) provide support for using
informational text read-alouds to contribute to scientific understandings, stating that
well-designed informational texts can contribute to conceptual understandings of
science concepts. With the emphasis in schools on language literacy, the need to
develop scientific literacy, and the limited number of hours in school, interdisciplinary lit-
eracy and science instruction makes sense. It promises not only to improve scientific lit-
eracy, but also language literacy (Mckee & Ogle, 2005).
Kelly (2018) analysed 28 award-winning children’s science tradebooks to determine
what kind of science was being portrayed, and by whom. Similar to previous analyses,
she found that most books did not explicitly teach ideas about NOS, with the empirical
NOS being the most common aspect targeted by discussion of data collection. Other
NOS aspects, when included, were implicit – meaning not explicitly pointed out as a
NOS idea. This points to the need for such tradebooks, and provides further support
for the current study.
Recommendations have been made for elementary teachers to use literacy strategies to
improve their science teaching (e.g. Nixon & Akerson, 2004; Crowther & Cannon, 2004;
Thier & Davis, 2002). Casteel and Isom (1994) described how the interrelated connection
between language arts and science ensures improved science teaching by beginning with
what students and teachers know about writing. Given goals for elementary teachers to
develop students’ abilities to read and write, it is not surprising that elementary teachers’
backgrounds are generally stronger in language arts than science. One strategy is using
strengths in language arts in science teaching. Yore, Bisanz, and Hand (2003) conducted
a literature review on research in language arts and science teaching. They described the
need for teachers to think about using language in scientific literacy because ideas are com-
municated through language. They found that teachers could use oral and written
language to support science learning. These strategies included teacher questioning,
writing (such as science notebooks and journals), and effective use of children’s literature.
Saul (2004) provided research-based suggestions for including literacy within science
instruction, such as children’s books, reflective writing strategies, and use of science note-
books. In the current study, we adopt several of these strategies, such as use of reflective
writings, teacher questioning strategies, and children’s literature. These strengths in lit-
eracy instruction can be used to promote explicit NOS instruction.
Similarly, Hug (2010) conducted a study on the use of children’s literature in teaching
environmental education. His focus was on helping preservice teachers effectively use chil-
dren’s literature to promote science learning, and to help them better evaluate appropriate
books to use. He found that preservice teachers improved in their abilities to select and
evaluate children’s literature to promote science learning as a result of focusing on scien-
tific accuracy and limited focus on anthropomorphism. This research further shows that
preservice teachers can use children’s literature to promote science learning.
2770 V. L. AKERSON ET AL.

Children’s literature can also be used in introducing science concepts to young children, as
long as age-appropriate pictures/photographs and text are selected. For example, Emmons,
Lees, and Kelemen (2018) conducted a study to improve kindergarten students’ conceptions
of natural selection through use of children’s literature. They developed two specific chil-
dren’s books targeted for teaching this topic to kindergarteners. They developed their own
books because they wanted to ensure accuracy and appropriate photographs/pictures that
would contributed to accurate conceptions. These books were coupled with class discussions
to debrief students’ conceptions of natural selection. The study took place over seven weeks of
study to enable a focus on retention of new understandings. The researchers found that early
elementary students were able to develop appropriate understandings and generalise across
various scenarios, in part from use of the specially designed children’s books coupled with
discussions about the books. Thus, the use of specially designed books can improve
science learning of young children, lending further support for the current study.

Intervention
We now describe the kinds of instruction that took place in the course to improve preservice
teachers’ NOS conceptions and abilities to translate them into formats accessible to young
children. The class met weekly for three hours. There were 22 seniors enrolled in this last
semester prior to student teaching, with 20 consenting to participate in the research. All
were female, in their early twenties. Their field experience was one full day each week in a
local early childhood classroom. They additionally spent two full weeks in the same class-
room. Field experience began in week five of the semester. Children’s literature as well as
the use of writing strategies were incorporated in science methods course to aid them in
developing their own NOS understandings, and in conceptualising ways to translate under-
standings to formats accessible to young children. The instructor (first author) included
instruction on NOS as well as made children’s literature and writing connections each week.
The instructor modelled how to debrief NOS aspects each week through explicit-reflec-
tive instruction found to be successful in improving preservice elementary teachers’ con-
ceptions of NOS (Akerson, Abgd-El-Khalick, & Lederman, 2000). For example, during
an investigation that included whether Oobleck was solid or liquid, the instructor modelled
questions to ask students regarding NOS. One such question connected ‘subjectivity’ or the
background knowledge that scientists bring to a problem. The instructor asked preservice
teachers to think about how scientific subjectivity could be highlighted. The class discussed
that if scientists understand solids and liquids, then they would realise that this substance
has components of both. Therefore it would be difficult to categorise as one. This realisation
helped the preservice teachers conceptualise that scientists are creative, and could create a
new category into which they could classify Oobleck. They also saw that they could teach the
distinction between observation and inference and could connect other NOS aspects, such
as subjectivity and creativity. Such activities and NOS debriefings took place weekly.
The instructor used children’s literature to support explicit-reflective instruction. She
used children’s literature to highlight NOS ideas, and required preservice teachers to
discuss and reflect in writing NOS ideas connected to inquiries. For example, the instruc-
tor read the Skull Alphabet Book (Pallotta, 2002) in which the reader sees an illustration of
a skull, reads clues, and infers the animal the skull could be from. There is a different skull
from A to Z. The instructor-led a discussion for how this book could be used to illustrate
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 2771

Figure 1. Scoring criteria for the create a ‘Book’ assignment.

NOS elements to students. For instance, the students could be asked which NOS elements
are illustrated in the book to which they could respond ‘Observation and inference’
(observing the skull and reading the clues, and inferring the animal), ‘creativity’ (creating
an idea of what the animal might be from the evidence), ‘subjectivity’ (one would not infer
an animal that one had never heard of before), ‘empirical NOS’ (making inferences from
data), ‘social and cultural NOS’ (one would be more likely to infer an animal from the
culture they are from), and ‘tentativeness’ (one can infer an animal and be likely
correct, but never be certain because it is a skull and without seeing the living animal it
is not certain). These kinds of book debriefs were held weekly. To support preservice tea-
chers’ NOS conceptions and aid them in translating them into formats accessible to young
children, preservice teachers were required to design lesson plans that incorporated NOS,
deliver lessons to their students, assess their students’ understandings, and reflect on their
students’ learning. They designed and created children’s books used to introduce and
teach about NOS to young children. This children’s book that they designed was intro-
duced in the second week of the semester, and they had 14 weeks to complete it, with feed-
back from peers and the instructor. The criteria for the books are in Figure 1. ‘Possible
points’ refers to how the storybooks were assessed, not analysed. See Appendix A for a
synopsis of instruction and topics across the semester.

Research design
We used a qualitative design (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003) where data were collected over one
semester in a course that included learning about NOS through reading, writing, and lit-
eracy-focused methods, planning and delivering NOS lessons using literacy components,
and designing a children’s book that could be used to teach about NOS at the early child-
hood level.
2772 V. L. AKERSON ET AL.

Data collection
A variety of data were collected by three researchers. First, all preservice teachers
responded to the open-ended Views of Nature of Science VNOS-B survey (Lederman,
Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002), which is a long-established open-ended instru-
ment to determine NOS conceptions. The instrument includes six open-ended questions
and requires participants to respond with their current understandings about through
writing their ideas (see Table 1). It was developed to assess participants’ views of tentative,
empirical, inferential, creative, subjective aspects of NOS, along with the distinctions
between observations and inferences and theories and laws. The survey was administered
at the beginning of the semester, middle of the semester, and at the end of the semester, to
enable tracking of changes in their NOS conceptions. On the first day of the semester, a
person not associated with the study or teaching the class came in to administer the
Internal Review Board for permission to conduct research. Because we could not obtain
permission to interview preservice teachers in the class due to the first author also
being an instructor, we were only able to use surveys. We acknowledge that we would
have a fuller data set if we had been able to also conduct interviews of a subset of the
class as is recommended as best practice for use of VNOS-B. Fortunately the researchers
have had much experience in analysing VNOS-B data previously which helped in analys-
ing the current data set.
All preservice teachers’ work over the course of the semester was collected, including
lesson plans, reflection papers that included discussions regarding the use of writing to
conceptualise NOS, and the preservice teacher-designed NOS storybooks.

Data analysis
The data were reviewed independently by all three researchers and then the researchers
met together to compare analyses to ensure valid interpretation. Any discrepancies
were resolved through discussion and further consultation of the data. To identify
results for question 1 ‘What are preservice early childhood teachers’ NOS conceptions
after participating in a science methods course that focuses on teaching NOS through lit-
eracy?’ VNOS-B responses were tracked pre-instruction, mid-semester, and at the end of
the semester to determine growth in conceptions of NOS, which is connected to the
knowledge of content component of PCK (Magnusson et al., 1999). Responses to the
VNOS-B survey were coded in line with recommended coding practices for the VNOS-
B (Lederman et al., 2002). Responses were coded ‘inadequate’ if they did not align with
recommended conceptions of the NOS aspect, ‘adequate’ if they mostly aligned with
the NOS aspect, and ‘informed’ if they were aligned and elaborated with examples of
the NOS aspect. For example, in response to the VNOS-B questions regarding the distinc-
tion between observation and inference, if preservice teachers responded ‘Scientists have
seen atoms. They developed the model from seeing them,’ their conception was coded
‘inadequate.’ If preservice teachers responded ‘Scientists cannot see the atom, but they
use observations of other data to determine what the atom must look like,’ their response
was coded ‘adequate.’ If preservice teachers responded
Scientists conducted various investigations to create a model of the atom. They designed
studies such as the gold foil experiment, to see how materials acted, and used the data
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 2773

Table 1. Coding examples for VNOS-B responses.

VNOS-B Question Examples for codes
Question 1. After scientists have developed a theory (e.g. Tentativeness: Inadequate: Science does not change.
atomic theory, kinetic molecular theory, cell theory), does Adequate: Science changes with new evidence.
the theory ever change? If you believe that scientific Informed: Science changes with new evidence or
theories do not change, explain why and defend your reinterpretation of existing evidence.
answer with examples. If you believe that theories do Theory And Law: Inadequate: Theories become laws with
change: (a) Explain why. (b) Explain why we bother to more evidence.
teach and learn scientific theories. Defend your answer Adequate: Theories are different knowledge than laws.
with examples. Informed: Theories are scientific knowledge that seek to
explain scientific theories.
Question 2. Science textbooks often represent the atom as a Inadequate: Scientists are certain because they saw atoms
central nucleus composed of positively charged particles with microscopes.
(protons) and neutral particles (neutrons) with negatively Adequate: Scientists are pretty sure, but could change
charged particles (electrons) orbiting the nucleus. How their minds with new evidence.
certain are scientists about the structure of the atom? Informed: Scientists are pretty certain, as they have made
What specific evidence do you think scientists used to observations and have inferred the model of the atom.
determine the structure of the atom? They could change their interpretations with new
evidence or reinterpretation of existing evidence.
Question 3. Is there a difference between a scientific theory Inadequate: A theory becomes a law with more evidence.
and a scientific law? Give an example to illustrate your Adequate: Theories and laws are different kinds of
answer. scientific knowledge.
Informed: Scientific theories are different from scientific
laws and seek to explain laws.
Question 4. How are science and art similar? How are they Inadequate: They are similar because they seek to describe
different? the world. They are different because science requires
rules.
Adequate: They are similar because they both create
understandings of the world. They are different because
science requires evidence.
Informed: They are similar in that they both seek to create
understandings of the world from the human and cultural
viewpoint. They are different because science requires
evidence, which is then interpreted by scientists to create
an understanding.
Question 5. Scientists perform experiments/investigations Inadequate: Scientists never use creativity or imagination or
when trying to solve problems. Other than in the stage of they would not come up with true answers.
planning and design, do scientists use their creativity and Adequate: Scientists use their imagination and creativity
imagination in the process of performing these in all stages of investigations.
experiments/investigations? Please explain your answer Informed: Scientists use their imaginations and creativity
and provide appropriate examples. in all stages of investigations to design an appropriate
study for the questions they raise, and to interpret the
data they collect. From their interpretations of data they
create scientific knowledge.
Question 6. In the recent past, astronomers differed greatly Inadequate: They would all agree if they had enough data.
in their predictions of the ultimate fate of the universe. They don’t have all the data yet.
Some astronomers believed that the universe is Adequate: All scientists have different backgrounds and
expanding while others believed that it is shrinking, still may interpret the data differently.
others believed that the universe is in a static state Informed: Scientists come from different cultures, and
without any expansion or shrinkage. How were these have different backgrounds, biases, and preconceived
different conclusions possible if the astronomers were all ideas about a scientific problem, all of which influences
looking at the same experiments and data? their interpretations of data and development of scientific
knowledge.

from such investigations to design a model. They have not seen an atom, but can use their
data to make interpretations and build models from how atoms act to describe what it
might look like,

was coded ‘informed.’ See Table 1 for examples of the coding rubric used by all researchers
for the data analysis.
To answer our second research question, ‘How are preservice early childhood teachers
able to transfer their understandings to a format they believed accessible to K-3 students
2774 V. L. AKERSON ET AL.

through their own written children’s literature book?’ we used sources of data that included
their other coursework, such as lesson plans, lesson reflection papers, and how the preser-
vice teachers translated NOS aspects to young children within their children’s books. These
sources were reviewed to determine whether and how preservice teachers were able to
exhibit the PCK element of the ability of translating NOS conceptions to young children
(Magnusson et al., 1999). Lesson plans were reviewed to determine whether there were
objectives for NOS included, activities included to teach NOS, and whether children’s litera-
ture or written/oral reflection were included in the lessons. Preservice teachers’ reflection
papers and were used to determine whether and how the preservice teachers were engaging
in thinking about NOS ideas, and use of children’s literature and written/oral reflection for
teaching NOS as well as whether they were engaging in explicit-reflective NOS instruction
within their science methods class. The researchers conducted a content analysis on the
accuracy of the NOS aspects incorporated in the stories to determine the quality of the
books. To do the content analysis the researchers independently tabulated the number of
children’s books with accurate portrayals of NOS aspects, along with the number that
included all NOS aspects accurately. The researchers coded the aspects as being accurate,
moderately accurate, inaccurately portrayed, or absent. The researchers looked for instances
where NOS aspects may be portrayed accurately in one part of the book, and less accurately
in other parts, and did not identify any such instances.

Results
In this section, we share the results by the research question. Our first question was ‘What
are preservice early childhood teachers’ NOS conceptions after participating in a science
methods course that focuses on teaching NOS through literacy?’ We follow with results to
our second question ‘How are preservice early childhood teachers able to transfer their
understandings to a format they believed accessible to K-3 students through their own
written children’s literature book?’

Preservice teachers’ NOS conceptions

Preservice teachers’ conceptions about NOS refined over the course of the semester. See
Table 1 for the tally of inadequate, adequate, and informed conceptions over the course
of the semester. We use pseudonyms to enable tracking various students across
different points in the semester (Table 2).
Regarding their pre-instruction ideas about the tentative NOS, initially, only Brienne
held an informed view, stating ‘Theories are often tested, but rarely change. They are
usually accepted as fact until proven otherwise, because there is much evidence backing
them up. However, they can change with evidence.’ Eighteen others held adequate views,
such as Sansa’s statement that ‘Yes, theories change. With new knowledge accumulated
they will have new ideas about the old theory, and change it so it fits the new evidence.’
By the end of the semester nine held informed views about the tentative NOS, such as
Sophia’s idea that ‘Scientific theories do change when do discoveries are made, or if scientists
reconsider their current evidence.’ Nine others held adequate conceptions, such as Ann’s
statement that ‘Theories can change.’ The remaining two retained inadequate ideas about
the tentative NOS, stating scientific theories and claims do not change.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 2775

Table 2. Preservice early childhood teachers’ NOS conceptions over time.

Pre-Instruction Mid-Instruction Post-Intsruction
NOS Aspect Inad Ad Inform Inad Ad Inform Inad Ad Inform
Tentative 1 18 1 3 7 10 1 9 9
Observation and Inference 11 8 1 4 10 6 1 8 10
Empirical 11 7 2 3 11 6 0 5 15
Creativity and Imagination 3 6 11 2 12 6 2 5 13
Subjective 5 13 2 2 8 10 2 4 14
Sociocultural 16 1 2 1 10 9 5 3 12
Theory and Law 20 0 0 2 8 10 13 11 4
Note. Inad: Inadequate; Ad: Adequate.

Similarly, eleven initially held inadequate views of the distinction between observation
and inference, such as Yara’s statement that she was ‘unsure how they can understand any-
thing they cannot see, like an atom.’ By the end of the semester ten preservice teachers held
informed views of the distinction between observation and inference, like Brienne’s state-
ment that ‘Scientists collect data, they make observations of their data using their senses
(or instruments), and then they interpret what the data mean.’ Eight others held adequate
ideas about the distinction between observation and inference, such as Missandei’s idea that
‘Scientific knowledge is based off of observable data–claims need to be made with evidence.’
Regarding the empirical NOS, eleven preservice students initially held inadequate ideas,
such as Ann’s idea that ‘Science is standardized and documented.’ By the end of the seme-
ster, fifteen preservice early childhood teachers held informed conceptions of empirical
NOS, such as Osha’s idea that ‘science needs to be supported by evidence, while other
ways of knowing do not.’ None of the preservice teachers retained inadequate ideas at
the end of the semester.
Preservice teachers held good understandings of the role that creativity and imagin-
ation plays in the development of scientific knowledge pre-instruction, with eleven
having informed ideas, while at the conclusion of the semester there were thirteen with
informed conceptions. Osha’s pre-instruction statement that ‘Science and art are creative
and can be visualised. Scientists use their creativity throughout a scientific investigation to
come up with interpretations and inferences about their data’ illustrates an informed
understanding of scientific creativity and imagination.
Initially, thirteen preservice teachers held adequate conceptions of the subjective NOS,
as illustrated by Lyanna’s statement that ‘Every scientist is an individual and has their own
opinions. Some scientists ignore certain info, or have a different theory about why things
are happening.’ She used the term ‘theory’ in the everyday sense, not in terms of a scientific
theory. At the end of the semester, fourteen preservice teachers held informed conceptions
of the subjective NOS, such as illustrated by Shae’s statement ‘Individuals interpret data
differently based on biases, beliefs, and approaches. They interpret data differently
depending on their backgrounds.’
Initially, sixteen preservice teachers did not conceptualise the sociocultural NOS. For
example, Cersei shared an inadequate understanding, by stating ‘If only we knew more
and had more evidence then scientists would agree.’ At the conclusion of the semester,
twelve preservice teachers had improved their conceptions to informed, such as Ann,
who stated ‘Scientific knowledge can be different in different cultures. They can consider
different scientific questions, interpret data differently depending on what is custom in
their culture.’
2776 V. L. AKERSON ET AL.

The preservice teachers’ conceptions of theory and law were all initially inadequate,
with none able to accurately describe its meaning. For example, Brienne stated ‘A scientific
theory is like the theory of evolution–we can experience it but there is proof. A law is
something that is always proven true, like the law of gravity.’ Several preservice teachers
shared Lyanna’s idea that ‘Scientific theory is not proven. A law is proven. Anyone can
repeat an experiment from a law and have the same outcome.’ After instruction, four pre-
service teachers exhibited adequate conceptions of the relationship between theory and
law, like Missandei’s idea that ‘Scientific theories will explain a scientific law.’ Four
others exhibited an informed understanding like Lyanna’s description that
Scientific laws and theories are different kinds of scientific knowledge. A scientific law is built
from scientific evidence, as is a scientific theory, but a scientific theory seeks to explain why a
scientific law (something observable) works. There can be competing theories to explain a
law.

These numbers represent substantial increases in terms of preservice teachers who

improved their conceptions of these NOS aspects, particularly for theory and law which
no one understood prior to instruction. Therefore, we feel that the strategies of teaching
NOS through literacy that were modelled in the science methods courses were effective in
helping the preservice early childhood teachers improve their own conceptions of NOS.

Preservice teachers’ use of NOS in lessons, combined with children’s literature

and written reflection, and design of storybooks in manners they believed would
transfer NOS conceptions to young children
In this section, we will describe results related to our second research question in terms of
whether and how preservice teachers planned to teach NOS, whether and how they
planned to use children’s literature or written/oral reflection to teach NOS, and
whether and how their childrens’ NOS storybooks were written in ways they believed
could transfer NOS understandings to K-3 students.

Use children’s literature, and oral/written reflection in lessons

All preservice teachers included NOS in their lesson plans, particularly observation and
inference, while five of them included other aspects of NOS, such as creativity, subjectivity
and empirical evidence. The pre-service teachers selected activities to teach these aspects
in interactive ways, including observations of the trees and leaves, designing boats, playing
a scavenger hunt to identify solids, liquids, and gases, and observing the inner and the
outer components of a pumpkin. Table 3 shares the data for each individual preservice
teacher.
Three preservice teachers included creativity in their lessons, while two others included
the tentative NOS. Brienne uncovered one of her students’ misunderstandings about the
tentative NOS through an interview. In her lesson reflection, she said she included scien-
tific tentativeness in her lesson to help students better understand this aspect. Her effort to
build on students’ current understandings is evidence that she is knowledgeable about
their understandings and is capable of translating her own NOS understandings for them.
In terms of children’s literature and oral/written reflection strategies used to teach
about NOS, all preservice teachers used children’s literature, with discussion of science
Table 3. Results across data sources for each pre-service teacher.
Is science
Is NOS represented content Are NOS objectives in Lesson Are literacy Objectives in Are NOS reflections in Lesson Are literacy reflections in
Student and Book Title accurately? represented? plan? Lesson Plan? Reflection? Lesson Reflection?
Arya, Visit from Planet Yes, all included but No Yes, observation and inference, Yes, Discussion, No Yes, ask children to reflect
Meep social and cultural prediction, creativity children’s literature, in writing and
context writing observations discussion
and inferences
Daenerys, Good Night Yes, only observation No Yes, observation and inference, Yes, Discussion, Yes, reflections on students Yes, using literacy to
Snoozie and inference and empirical evidence NGSS NOS children’s literature, making observations and record findings and
empirical NOS standards observations, Reading. empirical evidence reading books for
information
Brienne, Marcy meets the Yes, all but Yes – dinosaurs Yes, observation and inference, Yes, children’s literature, Yes, student misunderstanding Yes, writing observation
dinosaur subjectivity empirical evidence, creativity discussions, writing of tentativeness; observation and inferences,
and inference discussion, and reading
texts
Sansa, Science Seed Yes, empirical Yes, seeds and Yes, empirical evidence and Yes, children’s literature, Yes, reflected on student Yes, children’s science

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION

evidence and plants observation observation, writing observations book, discussion,
observation sharing ideas
Ygritte, What is Under the Yes, all aspects No Yes, includes NGSS standards Yes, children’s literature, Yes, students’ observations Yes, students writing and
Box? discussion, writing and predictions discussions.
Margaery, The True Story Yes, all aspects Yes: weather; Yes, empirical evidence, Yes, children’s literature, Yes, students’ predictions, use Yes, student discourse
of the Three Little Pigs materials observations writing, of data. and written work
Yara, Pinocchio: Why Does Yes, all aspects No Yes, empirical evidence and Yes, children’s literature, Yes, observations and Yes, class discussion,
my Nose Grow? observations discussions, KWL, inferences interpretations of
writing readings
Melisandre, Snow White Yes, all aspects, No None were explicit Yes, children’s literature, Yes, predictions and Yes, students’ ideas,
and the Seven Scientists implicitly discussion, writing, observations and inferences writing.
presenting
Cersei, If You Give a Yes, all aspects No Yes, observation and inference Yes, children’s literature, Yes, observations Yes, students recorded
Scientist a Question implicitly discussion, writing observations
Olenna, Pete the Cat Yes, except social No Yes, empirical and observation Yes, children’s literature, Yes, evidence and observations Yes, reflected on science
Becomes a Scientist and cultural and inference discussion, writing and inferences journals
Catelyn, The Case of the Yes, all included, and No Yes, observations, inferences, Yes, children’s literature, Yes, observations Yes, discussions and
Missing Krabby Patty defined and predictions discussion, writing written chart
Meera, The Pigeon Does Yes, but implicitly No Yes, includes NGSS NOS Yes, children’s literature, Yes, said she included NOS Yes, reflected on
an Investigation standards discussion, written (but did not elaborate) students’ writing and
posters enjoyment of story

2777
(Continued )
 2778
V. L. AKERSON ET AL.
Table 3. Continued.
Is science
Is NOS represented content Are NOS objectives in Lesson Are literacy Objectives in Are NOS reflections in Lesson Are literacy reflections in
Student and Book Title accurately? represented? plan? Lesson Plan? Reflection? Lesson Reflection?
Osha, Science is All NOS elements No No No Yes, reflected on student Yes, reflected on their
Everywhere (wrote with included and observations diagrams
Ellaria) defined
Shae, The Disappearance All NOS elements No Yes, tentativeness, empirical Yes, children’s literature, Yes, students’ ideas about Yes, student discussions
of Thumbelina implicitly data, observation predictions, tentativeness, empirical data, and ideas.
discussions observation, and subjectivity
Shireen, Animals All NOS elements Yes–Animals Yes, observations and Yes, children’s literature, Yes, students’ observations Yes, enjoyment of book,
explicitly inferences discussions, writing and writing
Ellaria, and Osha All NOS elements No Yes, observations, and Yes, children’s literature, Yes, students’ predictions and Yes, student ideas about
(coauthors) Science is included and predictions. discussions, writing observations butterfly life cycle.
Everywhere defined
Missandei, Three Brown All NOS elements Yes– Yes, observations Yes, children’s literature, Yes, students’ observations Yes, students’ enjoyment
Chipmunks on a Brown defined and camouflage writing, discussion and inferences of the story and their
Tree Branch explicit writings
Dany, The Three Little Only observations No Yes, observations Yes, children’s literature, None on NOS Yes, students’
Pigs, Science Edition and inferences writing, discussion experiences and
included writings.
Lyanna, SpongeBob and All NOS aspects No Yes, creativity, tentativeness, Yes, sharing ideas, Yes, learning about fossils Yes, students enjoying
Sandy use Nature of included and empirical evidence, children’s literature, gives students opportunity the book, on students
Science to Make a defined subjectivity, social and writing, discussion to learn about NOS aspects sharing their ideas
Discovery cultural context, and theory
and law
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 2779

ideas. Eleven preservice teachers used reflective writing with the students, such as KWL
charts, Venn diagrams, Anchor charts, classroom posters, writing stories/poems to
connect to the science content, science journals, exit tickets, recording predictions, and
recording ideas on observation and inference charts.
For example, Arya included in her lesson for students to conceptualise how scientists
used observations of evidence to infer the life cycle of a butterfly, illustrating that they
were creative in developing an understanding of a butterfly’s life cycle. She held an expli-
cit-reflective discussion with her first-grade students to help them distinguish between
observations and inferences, which she termed ‘oral reflection of NOS ideas.’ Similarly,
Brienne used children’s literature to introduce a lesson on observations and inferences
in connection with a lesson on animal habitats, leading her third grade students to
think making observations of habitats and inferring the types of animals likely to live
there. She then connected it her lesson to scientific creativity by sharing with the students
that scientists created understandings of animal habitats by making observations and
inferences about those habitats. She also used oral and written reflection to have students
reinforce their understandings of the distinction between observations and inferences by
discussing their ideas, and then having them record their observations and associated
inferences on chart paper.
Lyanna sought to incorporate all NOS aspects through her second grade lesson by using
a children’s literature book about dinosaurs, creating an anchor chart about what students
already knew about dinosaurs, and having an explicit oral reflection about how scientists
were creative about making observations of empirical data to infer what dinosaurs looked
like, how they based their understandings of dinosaurs on their current understandings
(subjectivity), and how it was all within their own social and cultural context. In sub-
sequent lessons that she designed, she continued reinforcing these ideas through explora-
tions of fossils, habitat, and other data. At the conclusion of the lessons she asked students
to consider how their ideas changed over the course of their study of dinosaurs, leading
them to conceptualise the tentative NOS, and how scientists also may change their
ideas as they considered new evidence and reconsidered existing evidence.
Regarding their own reflections of NOS through their investigations in the methods
course, fifteen of the preservice teachers included reflections of their own understandings
of NOS as well as their teaching of NOS to students in their reflections. For example,
Daenerys reflected on how she included NOS objectives of observations and inference,
and empirical data in her lesson. She reflected on her students making observations,
and then inferences about the leaves that they were studying. She reflected that by
asking them to focus on the evidence (the leaves) she thought about how observations
were different than evidence, because students observed the evidence, and then made
inferences. Yara similarly noted in her lesson of kindergartners that her students were
very engaged in observing the leaves, and was very happy when they could distinguish
between observations and inferences. She stated in her reflection that students made
observations such as sizes and colorus of leaves, and then made inferences when they
said things like ‘leaves change color because it is cold outside.’ She believed that her stu-
dents understood that their inferences were based on ideas they made of their
observations.
On the other hand, Arya, who did have NOS objectives in her science lesson, did not
reflect on her students’ understandings of NOS, only their understandings of science
2780 V. L. AKERSON ET AL.

content. Similarly, Dany included NOS objectives of observation and inference in her
science lessons, but did not reflect on her student understandings of these NOS ideas.
Dany was also one of the preservice teachers who had difficulty with her own conceptions
of NOS, not improving much in her ideas over the course of the semester.

Design of storybooks in manners they believed would transfer NOS conceptions to

young children
Preservice teachers were able to transfer their understandings of NOS to formats they
believed their students could conceptualise through their NOS storybooks. Twelve preser-
vice teachers were successful in including all NOS aspects (except theory and law, which is
not part of the early childhood curriculum) in their children’s books in ways they believed
that young children would be able to conceptualise the ideas through stories. Three other
preservice teachers successfully included NOS elements of empirical evidence and the dis-
tinction between observation and inference in their children’s books, and explicitly in
lesson plans. These same three preservice teachers also reflected on their teaching of
empirical evidence and observation and inferences, and their students’ understandings
in their reflections. Three other preservice teachers included NOS implicitly in their
stories, meaning they did not use the NOS terminology with students. Two of these
included NOS implicitly in their lessons, meaning they did not include NOS objectives,
despite suggesting that their lessons did teach NOS aspects, while one (Arya) included
explicit NOS instruction, meaning she included NOS objectives. It was interesting for
us to note that five preservice teachers included science content connecting NOS in
their storybooks. These preservice teachers used decontextualised vs. contextualised
NOS in their stories (e.g. Clough, 2006). See Table 3 for results regarding each student.
Ten preservice teachers used popular culture as contexts for the stories, like SpongeBob,
SquarePants, Three Little Pigs, or Sleeping Beauty, while eight others wrote original stories.
Use of popular culture enabled them to use screenshots of media to include pictures in
books. The other preservice teachers created their own stories, with some creating their
own artwork. Many were contextualised within a mystery, where a scientist made obser-
vations and inferences of empirical data, created an understanding, needed to revise the
inference due to reconsideration of data, within a social and cultural, and subjective context.
Eighteen preservice teachers accurately incorporated the tentative NOS into their
stories. All of these stories included a scientist or a character in the story revising an infer-
ence based on new evidence or reinterpretation of existing evidence, and making a new
claim. Shireen wrote a story about a mother scientist talking to her son. She introduces
‘observation and inferences’ by immersing them in her story about Safari animals.
Within the story the scientist mother stated:
I observed this animal, and now need to make inferences as to what these data mean. This
footprint looks like an impala’s footprint. An impala has a footprint like a coffee bean. But
when I see part of the picture, it is not an impala, it has dark brown spots on the long
neck. I think it is a giraffe!

Shireen made a connection where the reader would learn about observations and infer-
ences as data were observed, and later connect to the tentative NOS as the claim changed
with evidence. In all stories, the story included the tentative NOS as part of science, and
not that scientists were ‘wrong’ with their earlier inference.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 2781

All books included accurate depictions of the empirical NOS. The main character col-
lected data to solve a problem. Missandei wrote an original story about the lives of three
chipmunks in a forest. In the story, the chipmunks are safe from hawks, and conducted an
investigation to determine how they are remaining unseen by the hawks. Their exploration
leads them to understand camouflage. Missandei shows science is empirical, and connects
it to tentative NOS. The chipmunks had their personal ideas for why hawks couldn’t see
them, but changed their ideas as they collected new evidence through empirical data:
Because science is tentative, the chipmunks knew that their plan might not work, but they
needed to collect empirical data for their theory to remain unchanged. Science is empirical
and requires evidence to support scientific knowledge.

Eighteen stories included accurate representations of creativity and imagination in the

development of scientific knowledge. Eighteen stories included an accurate depiction of
the subjective NOS, in which scientists’ backgrounds influence their interpretations of
data. In the stories, a scientific claim was shown to be made partially through the under-
standings of the scientist. Margaery used characters from a popular children’s story The
Three Little Pigs, to teach NOS elements. In her story Mr. Wolf guides the three little
pigs to act as scientists and they try to figure out which houses are sturdy enough for a
hurricane. Margaery illustrates that scientists are subjective, using background knowledge
in making scientific claims:
Mr. Wolf walked over to the house made of sticks. “This is my house,” said the Second Pig, “I
know it will stay standing because it has lasted through a lot of storms.” “You are using your
SUBJECTIVITY to make that claim. This means you are using your background knowledge to
predict that your house will withstand the storm, because it has done so before,” said Mr. Wolf.

Fifteen stories included accurate depictions of the influence of sociocultural NOS on

scientific claims. Though not required to include the distinction between theory and
law given it is not in the early childhood curriculum, five preservice teachers did incorpor-
ate theory and law in accurate ways, though maybe not in ways that were in ‘kid friendly’
terms. Margaery included it in her story of the mother scientist teaching her son about
science and NOS:
You did a great job my little scientist! I need to tell you about the most important NOS
aspects, theory and law. Laws are patterns and regularities about the natural world. And the-
ories are explanations for those patterns. Remember, a theory cannot become a law.

It is clear that it this inclusion was something she had learned, and was simply passing it
on in the same way she learned it, without translating it into formats she believed would be
accessible to students. Others who included theory and law were clear that theories were
explanations for patterns in data that determined laws. Conceptualising theory and law
was the most difficult aspect for the preservice teachers to understand, and was a focus
in the course. We found that preservice teachers refined their conceptions of NOS
through the development of their children’s book.

Discussion
As had been previously found (Akerson et al., 2011; Akerson et al., 2019) inclusion of chil-
dren’s literature and oral and written reflection, seems a powerful tool for helping to teach
2782 V. L. AKERSON ET AL.

about NOS to early childhood preservice teachers. We modelled the use of children’s lit-
erature, reading, writing, and discussion strategies that helped the preservice teachers
refine their own understandings about NOS, and enabled them to translate these ideas
into classroom practice. Their conceptions of NOS refined through thinking about and
planning to teach about NOS to their students. We found that preservice teachers
planned to teach NOS and literacy, reflected on teaching, and delivered NOS and literacy
lessons. These literacy strategies enabled them to develop their own content knowledge
about NOS, and to translate these understandings to their early childhood students. Devel-
opment of their content knowledge was an important component of the development of
their NOS PCK (Magnusson et al., 1999).
We found that the combination of writing the children’s trade book to teach NOS,
designing and carrying out NOS lessons, and reflecting on NOS learning of their students,
aided in their conceptions of NOS and translating their NOS ideas into formats that they
believed would be understandable to young children. Thinking about how to teach NOS to
students helped them solidify and conceptualise their own ideas about NOS and required
them to consider how young children would best understand NOS. The ways they trans-
lated their understandings into ‘kid friendly language’ were similar to those in Hanuscin
and Lee (2010), in terms of breaking down NOS ideas into terms that young children
could understand. This translation did not always hold for the aspect of the distinction
between theory and law, and again, including theory and law in the books was not required
as it is not part of the early childhood curriculum.
While most preservice teachers improved their own conceptions about NOS elements,
their translation of their ideas into versions they believed accessible to students were not
done equally well. While twelve preservice teachers included NOS objectives in their
lesson plans, reflected on their NOS teaching, and included all NOS elements explicitly in
their storybooks, three others only included empirical evidence and the distinction
between observation and inference in their storybooks, two others only included NOS
implicitly in their lessons and story, and with one explicitly including NOS in her lesson,
but not in the story. Therefore, their abilities to translate their content knowledge about
NOS in ways accessible to early childhood students were varied as a result of participating
in the literacy and NOS activities in the methods course. The two who did not develop expli-
cit strategies did not reflect on their NOS teaching in their lesson reflections. Previous
research has shown that explicit-reflective instruction is necessary to improve NOS con-
ceptions (Akerson et al., 2000). Perhaps it is necessary when developing PCK for teaching
NOS to be reflective on NOS teaching and learning. While preservice teachers were required
to reflect on their teaching, several did not reflect on their teaching of NOS. Those preservice
teachers who did not reflect on teaching about NOS, also did not include NOS explicitly in
lessons, and did not develop a storybook that explicitly taught NOS.
While previous studies have shown that preservice teachers can improve their NOS
understandings in a science methods course (e.g. Akerson & Volrich, 2006), the current
study shows that inclusion of children’s literature coupled with lesson plans and reflec-
tions focused on NOS aided them in thinking about teaching NOS. Literacy helped
most develop strategies for translating these understandings to early childhood students,
indicating their PCK for teaching NOS was developing. The inclusion of NOS objectives in
lesson plans, reflections on NOS teaching (and their own conceptions of NOS), and cre-
ation of NOS storybooks aided them in developing PCK for teaching NOS to early
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 2783

childhood students. It provided an artefact they could carry with them to introduce NOS
ideas to their future students. It is desired that preservice teachers move beyond NOS
PCK-readiness (Akerson et al., 2017) and leave the science methods course with strategies
and artefacts that enable them to explicitly introduce NOS to their students. We found that
(a) using literacy strategies, (b) developing NOS lesson plans, (c) reflecting on their NOS
teaching and students’ learning and (d) incorporating the NOS storybooks were effective
in helping most preservice teachers conceptualise NOS and translate ideas to students.
Preservice teachers developed strategies and artefacts to introduce NOS ideas to their stu-
dents. Using literacy to teach about NOS helped them consider ways to teach NOS, while
refining their own understandings about NOS. Therefore their PCK for teaching NOS had
been enhanced through these strategies.

Implications for science teacher education

As previously found (e.g. Thier & Davis, 2002), elementary teachers often have strengths
in literacy instruction, and using these strengths to improve science teaching is one way to
improve their NOS content knowledge and abilities to translate their NOS understandings
into formats accessible to students, meaning they have improved their PCK for NOS. We
recommend incorporating literacy strategies in the early childhood methods course to
teach about NOS. We recommend requiring explicit lesson objectives to teach NOS,
and designing strategies for assessing students’ NOS conceptions. We recommend that
preservice teachers reflect on NOS teaching, and students’ learning of NOS. This reflection
on NOS instruction, and student learning further enhances their development of PCK for
teaching NOS. The assignment of the NOS storybook could expand to design any artefact
that could be used to engage students in learning about NOS, such as an interactive bul-
letin board, a website or app, or a song about NOS. Indeed, literacy strategies embedded in
the science methods classroom can support NOS content development, and abilities of the
preservice teachers to translate NOS content to their own students.

Recommendations for further research

Future studies should explore how early childhood teachers engage young children with
NOS, including the use of the NOS storybooks. Future research on the kinds of under-
standings early childhood students develop about NOS would be of great interest. Prior
research has found that young children can and do learn about NOS given appropriate
instruction (e.g. Akerson & Donnelly, 2010), and it would be important to know what
young children can learn as a result of explicit use of the storybooks to introduce these
NOS ideas, along with explicit NOS lessons within their science classes.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Valarie L. Akerson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0945-6149
Banu Avsar Erumit http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9048-6467
2784 V. L. AKERSON ET AL.

References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowl-
edge domains. Science and Education, 22, 2087-2107.
Achieve. (2013). Next generation science standards. Retrieved June 30, 2013, from http://www.
nextgenescience.org
Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of a reflective
activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295–317.
Akerson, V. L., Buck, G. A., Donnelly, L. A., Nargund, V., & Weiland, I. S. (2011). The importance
of teaching and learning nature of science in the early childhood years. The Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 20, 537–549.
Akerson, V. L., Carter, I., Pongsanon, K., & Nargund-Joshi, V. (2019). Teaching and learning nature
of science in elementary classrooms: Research based strategies for practical implementation.
Science & Education, 28, 391–411.
Akerson, V. L., Cullen, T. A., & Hanson, D. L. (2009). Fostering a community of practice through a
professional development program to improve elementary teachers’ views of nature of science
and teaching practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 1090–1113.
Akerson, V. L., & Donnelly, L. A. (2010). Teaching nature of science to K-2 students: What under-
standings can they attain? International Journal of Science Education, 32, 97–124.
Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: The results of
a three-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44,
653–680.
Akerson, V. L., Pongsanon, K., Park Rogers, M., Weiland, I. S., & Galindo, E. (2017). Exploring the
use of lesson study to develop elementary preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for
teaching nature of science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 293–
312.
Akerson, V. L., & Volrich, M. (2006). Teaching nature of science explicitly in a first grade internship
setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 377–394.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories
and methods (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Brunner, J., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2017). Representations of nature of science in U.S. Elementary
Science textbooks. In C. V. McDonald & F. Abd-El-Khalick (Eds.), Representations of nature of
science in school science textbooks: A global perspective (pp. 131–151). New York: Routledge.
Casteel, C. P., & Isom, B. A. (1994). Reciprocal processes in science and literacy learning. The
Reading Teacher, 47(7), 538–454.
Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for
effective nature of science instruction. Science Education, 16, 463–494.
Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in
elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 186–204.
Crowther, D. T., & Cannon, J. (2004). Strategy makeover: K-W-L to T-H-C. Science and Children,
42(1), 42–44.
Demirdogen, B., Hanuscin, D. L., Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E., & Koseoglu, F. (2016). Development
and nature of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for nature of
science. Research in Science Education, 46, 575–612.
Deng, F., Chen, D., Tsai, C., & Chai, C. (2011). Students’ views of the nature of science: A critical
review of the research. Science Education, 95, 961–999.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge
in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.
Emmons, N., Lees, K., & Kelemen, D. (2018). Young children’s near and far transfer of the basic
theory of natural selection: An analogical storybook intervention. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 55, 321–347.
Fang, Z. (2014). Disciplinary literacy in science: Developing science literacy through trade books.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57, 274–278.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 2785

Hanuscin, D. (2013). Critical incidents in the development of pedagogical content knowledge for
teaching the nature of science: A prospective teachers’ journey. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 24, 933–956.
Hanuscin, D. L., Lee, M. H., & Akerson, V. L. (2010). Elementary teachers’ pedagogical content
knowledge for teaching the nature of science. Science Education, 95, 145–167.
Hoffman, J. L., Collins, M. F., & Schickedanz, J. A. (2015). Instructional challenges in developing
young children’s science concepts: Using informational text read alouds. The Reading Teacher,
68, 363–372.
Hug, J. W. (2010). Exploring instructional strategies to develop prospective teachers’children’s lit-
erature book evaluation skills for science, ecology, and environmental education. Environmental
Education Research, 16(3–4), 367–382.
Kelly, L. B. (2018). An analysis of award-winning science trade books for children: Who are the
scientists and what is science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55, 1188–1210.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G.
Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). New York:
Routledge.
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.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical
content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical
content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Mckee, J., & Ogle, D. (2005). Integrating instruction: Literacy and science. New York: Guilford Press.
National Science Teachers Association. (2000). NSTA position statement: The Nature of Science.
Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=22
Nixon, D. T., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Building bridges: Using science as a tool to teach reading and
writing. Educational Action Research, 12, 197–217.
Pallotta, J. (2002). The skull alphabet book. Watertown, MA: Charlesbridge.
Saul, W. (2004). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and prac-
tice. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Thier, M., & Davis, B. (2002). The new science literacy: Using language skills to help students learn
science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the component of science literacy: 25
years of language arts and science. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 689–725.
2786 V. L. AKERSON ET AL.

Appendix A. NOS, Literacy, and Science Content Throughout the Semester

RELATED NOS RELATED LITERACY SCIENCE CONTENT

Week 1 . NOS power point to remind . Story reading – When I heard the Introduction to NOS
students of NOS aspects. Learned Astronomer
. Tubes activity . Students’ discussion and reflection
about the story
Week 2 . Discussion about VNOS-B . Story reading – What is the world Solids, liquids, gases, and
. Completing the tubes activity made of (a non-fiction book) soliquids (Oobleck)
. Discussion of how Oobleck . Students’ discussion and reflection
activity is connected to NOS about the story
. Reaction paper: Topic – Teaching
science to young children
. Poster about characteristics of solids,
liquids, and gases
. Small group and whole class
discussion about students’
observations and inferences about
Oobleck
Week 3 . discussion about NOS aspects in . Story reading – Professor Xargle Discussion of NOS as a
the story book . Exit slip-students record how content area to be taught
. Debrief Xargle activity in terms they envision using story book to young children
of NOS for science teaching, and what
. Read ‘Seven Blind Mice’ and concepts
discuss NOS . Discussion about literacy in science
. Discussion regarding
scientific literacy and language
literacy
. Students’ discussion and reflection
about the story
Week 4 . Revising VNOS-D questions to . Story reading – Science Verse Reinforcing ideas about NOS
use with younger students . Students’ discussion about the story and sharing teaching
. Cube activity . Small group discussion during cube strategies for teaching NOS
. Begin working on unit overview activity to young children
Week 5 . Students’ discussion about the . Story reading – Boy We were Wrong Electricity; electric circuits
NOS aspects addressed in the About the Solar System
story book . Students’ discussion and reflection
. Begin drafting lesson plans about the story
. Reflection on the student interviews
about NOS
. class poster ‘what do you think
electricity is?’ and ‘how do you think
it works?’
. Displaying posters that have 3rd
graders’ responses to the same
questions
. Displaying a poster that have 3rd
graders’ responses about ‘how we
think a switch works’
. Whole class discussion about
teaching electricity to young
children
. Story book
Week 6 . Students’ discussion about the . Story reading – Encyclopedia Clarifying the distinction
NOS aspects in the story Prehistorica: Dinosaurs between scientific theory
. Activity regarding theory and . Students’ discussion and reflection and law
law (read a radio script) about the story
. Watching a video clip that . Reviewing science story books
clarified theory and law
Week 7 . Students’ discussion about the . Story reading-Reflections Reflection and light
NOS aspects . Students’ discussion and reflection
. Showing NOS poster about the story

(Continued )
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 2787

Continued.
RELATED NOS RELATED LITERACY SCIENCE CONTENT
. Lesson plans completed . Reading Discussions-Making
observations in science
. Whole class discussion
about the definition of reflection
and recording students’ responses
. Showing a student journal as an
example for PSTs to show how
students can record their
observations on a journal
. Whole class discussion about what
objects blocked all light after
investigating reflection with
different materials
. Small group discussion and written
reflection about incorporating
literacy into science when teaching
science
Week 8 . Reading and discussion of NOS . Reading NOS children’s book Camouflage and adaptation
children’s book . Reading discussion – Making
. Watching an interview about an explanations in science
elementary student’s
understanding of NOS
. NOS Activities that a specialist
from Sycamore LandTrust
facilitated (Partner observation,
Observing the nature and
finding the hidden objects,
Closing eyes and capturing the
sounds, collecting leaf of a plant
and smell it)
. Feedback on lesson plans
provided to enable final
revisions
Week 9 . Float and sink activity that . Story reading about floating and Float and sink, Buoyancy
addresses observation, sinking – Archimedes Bath
prediction, and tentativeness . Students’ discussion and reflection
. Cartesian diver activity – about the story
(addresses observation and . Completing definitions as a whole
inferences) class- floating is when … and
sinking is when …
. Displaying posters that have
elementary students’ answers to the
same question
. Displaying posters that have
elementary students’ predictions
and findings about the objects that
could sink or float.
Week 10 . Making Observation and . Story reading Rotational force
inferences of tops
. Making prediction about the
speed of falling papers
. Making prediction of ‘which
ghost will spin?’
. Sharing teaching experiences of
science in the field experience
and discussing how the lessons
incorporated NOS aspects
Week 11 Teaching WeekPreservice teachers
teach all week
Week 12 Teaching WeekPreservice teachers
teach all week
Week 13 NOS children’s book sharing . Reading a science story book
. NOS book sharing