Students’ Views of the Nature

of Science: A Critical Review

of Research

FENG DENG, DER-THANQ CHEN

National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore 637616

CHIN-CHUNG TSAI
Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education, National Taiwan
University of Science and Technology, Taipei 106, Taiwan

CHING SING CHAI

National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore 637616

Received 20 September 2010; revised 27 January 2011; accepted 2 February 2011

DOI 10.1002/sce.20460
Published online 30 September 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

ABSTRACT: This review examines 105 empirical studies that investigate students’ views
of the nature of science (VNOS), effects of curricular interventions on changing students’
VNOS, and relations between VNOS and demographics, majors, and learning of science.
The reviewed studies can be categorized into three theoretical frameworks: the unidimen-
sion, the multidimension, and the argumentative resource frameworks. Each framework
is reviewed first with regard to its theoretical foundation, methods of data collection and
analysis, and the respective findings. This is followed by a critical discussion on the
methodological issues and the strengths and limitations of the framework. Potential di-
rections regarding theoretical framework, methodology, and pedagogy are suggested in
the future directions section. For example, this review proposes the shift to argumentative
resource framework for VNOS research and a refinement for judging the “sophistication”
of student VNOS. The role of inquiry in student VNOS is also discussed.  C 2011 Wiley

Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 95:961 – 999, 2011

Correspondence to: Chin-Chung Tsai; e-mail: [email protected]

Contract grant sponsor: National Science Council, Taiwan.
Contract grant numbers: NSC 99-2511-S-011-005-MY3 and NSC 99-2631-S-011-001.


C 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
962 DENG ET AL.

INTRODUCTION
Regardless of their various pedagogical emphases, most nations have advocated the
development of students’ views of nature of science (VNOS) as a perennial objective of
science education (e.g., American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS],
1993; National Research Council [NRC], 1996). VNOS has been repeatedly emphasized
in many major reform efforts in science education (e.g., Clough, 2006; McComas, 2008;
McComas, Clough, & Almazroa, 1998), and it has been suggested as a vital component
of scientific literacy (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000a; Lederman, 2007; Millar
& Osborne, 1998). Driver, Leach, Millar, and Scott (1996) delineated the importance of
VNOS by explicating five potential benefits when students express sophisticated VNOS.
Specifically, VNOS helps students to (a) understand the process of science, (b) make
informed decisions on socioscientific issues, (c) appreciate science as a pivotal element of
contemporary culture, (d) be more aware of the norms of the scientific community, and
(e) learn science content with more depth. These “primary intuitive” (Lederman, 2007,
p. 832) arguments are supported empirically by a number of recent studies reviewed later in
this paper. Although scholars generally appreciate the role of VNOS in science education,
they have not reached an agreement on a specific definition of “nature of science” (NOS)
and the meaning of “sophisticated” VNOS (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Lederman, 1998;
Alters, 1997; Hipkins, Barker, & Bolstad, 2005; Lederman, 2004, 2007; Matthews, 1994;
McComas, 1996; Pomeroy, 1993; Rudolph, 2000). Before attempting to review the studies
on students’ VNOS, it is necessary and important to briefly review these two debates.

Debate Regarding What “Nature of Science” Refers To

The first debate focuses on whether there exists a universal view of “the” nature of science.
As several researchers (e.g., Lederman, 1996, 2007; Ruse, 1999; Suchting, 1995) argue, a
unified definition of the construct NOS may not be achieved if individuals’ perceptions of
NOS change over time. In their thorough review, Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000a)
have discussed the major shifts in focus and emphasis in the fields of philosophy, sociology,
and history of science. They argued that these shifts may lead to the changes in the
conceptualization of NOS within the science education community. Specifically, NOS
has been simply understood as “the scientific method” in the early 1900s (see Central
Association for Science and Mathematics Teachers, 1907), and as involving science process
skills by the 1960s. It was later described as comprising a series of specific characteristics
of scientific knowledge (e.g., tentative, public, replicable, probabilistic, historic, unique,
holistic, and empirical) in the 1970s (e.g., Centre of Unified Science Education, 1974).
Since the 1980s, the meaning of NOS has been extended by involving other psychological
and sociocultural factors, such as the role of scientists’ personal background, creativity and
imagination, and their social negotiation in the development of scientific knowledge (e.g.,
AAAS, 1993; National Science Teachers Association, 1982; NRC, 1996). Therefore, there
is generally a lack of agreement on what NOS should be.
However, a certain extent of consensus about NOS has been recognized among science
educators. Within the NOS education research area, Lederman’s (1992) operational defini-
tion of NOS has been widely used. Specifically, NOS refers to the epistemology of science,
science as one way of knowing, or the values and assumptions inherent to scientific knowl-
edge and its development (also see Lederman & Zeidler, 1987). Based on this “definition,”a
consensus of key NOS aspects appropriate for K-12 science teaching has begun to emerge
since the 1990s. For example, a thorough review (McComas & Olson, 1998) of eight
international science standards documents has demonstrated a notable level of generality
Science Education
 STUDENTS’ VIEWS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 963

regarding the NOS aspects currently advocated for precollege science students. Most of
these consensual NOS aspects (see also McComas et al., 1998) are also recommended
by another group of leading international experts including science educators, scientists,
historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science (Osborne, Collins, Ratcliffe, Millar, &
Duschl, 2003). By considering issues related to the accessibility to students, recognition by
public and the usefulness for citizens, Lederman (2007) has proposed seven key aspects of
NOS:

Scientific knowledge is tentative (subject to change), empirically based (based on and/or de-
rived from observations of the natural world), and subjective (involves personal background,
biases, and/or is theory-laden); necessarily involves human inference, imagination, and cre-
ativity (involves the invention of explanations); and is socially and culturally embedded.
Two additional important aspects are the distinction between observations and inferences,
and the functions of and relationships between science theories and laws. (p. 833)

Although many science educators generally acknowledge these seven NOS aspects, they
may disagree on whether inquiry should be included in NOS. Before attending to the next
debate, a brief discussion about this issue should be necessary. Lederman (2007) has advised
to differentiate NOS from scientific inquiry while he admits to their intimate relationships.
Scientific inquiry involves cyclical science activities such as forming hypotheses, collecting
data, analyzing data, and drawing conclusions (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996). Different char-
acterizations of “inquiry” (e.g., “scientific method,” “scientific processes,” “experimental
approach,” etc.) can also be seen in a recent international set of symposium papers (Abd-El-
Khalick et al. 2004). The construct NOS, on the other hand, refers to the epistemological
underpinnings of these science activities and the characteristics of the knowledge pro-
duced. However, Lederman’s proposed differences between NOS and scientific inquiry are
contested by some researchers. According to Grandy and Duschl (2007), Lederman’s inter-
pretation of scientific inquiry focuses mainly on the cognitive processes used for reasoning
about science topics. It may “greatly oversimplify the nature of observation and theory and
almost entirely ignores the role of models in the conceptual structure of science” (p. 144).
They suggest instead that a comprehensive understanding of scientific inquiry should also
entail the epistemic frameworks used for developing and evaluating scientific knowledge
and the social processes that shape the generation and communication of knowledge. Ac-
cordingly, a series of epistemic and social activities, such as collaboratively discussing
models, giving arguments for/against models, and writing about models, are suggested as
elements of scientific inquiry. Consistent with such suggestion, a group of researchers (e.g.,
Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Duschl & Grandy, 2007; Shipman, 2004) contend that scien-
tific inquiry and NOS are inseparably intertwining with each other. They tend to highlight
(a) the epistemological authenticity of the inquiry (e.g., Chinn & Malhotra, 2002), (b) the
epistemological goal of inquiry (e.g., Brickhouse, Stanley, & Whitson, 1993; Sandoval,
2005), and (c) the epistemological enactment through inquiry (e.g., Ford, 2008a; Sandoval
& Millwood, 2005). Although Lederman (2007) advocates using the phrase “nature of
scientific knowledge” (rather than NOS) to avoid the conflation issue, scientific inquiry
(especially “scientific methods”) has been considered an important NOS aspect in many
studies reviewed later (e.g., Dogan & Abd-El-Khalick, 2008; Ryder & Leach, 2000).

Debate Regarding What “Sophisticated” VNOS Means

Although a consensus about NOS may have been generally established, the meaning
of “sophisticated” VNOS remains debatable. In the past decades, constructivist-oriented
Science Education
964 DENG ET AL.

VNOS has been advocated by a majority of NOS researchers (seen in the following).
Constructivist epistemology has been interpreted differently (see Matthews, 2002, for a
review), but most constructivists seem to agree with two core epistemological themes
(Lerman, 1989, Matthews, 1992; Staver, 1998; von Glasersfeld, 1995). First, knowledge
is actively constructed within a thinking person individually or through social exchanges.
It is not passively received or transmitted from the environment. Second, knowing is an
adaptive process that organizes an individual’s experiential world within a social setting.
Knowing is not targeted toward the discovery of an objective and certain reality (or truth)
that may exist independently from the individual’s experiential or social world. The NOS
researchers’ preference for the constructivist epistemology may be associated with the his-
tory of the development of science education. As Klopfer (1983) argues, science education
was still conceived as a “preparadigmatic” domain in the early 1980s. It was not considered
a scientific domain until the establishment of an “emergent consensus” about constructivist
positions (Gil-Pérez et al., 2002). Thus, close links between constructivist and science
education have been gradually established and highlighted (e.g., AAAS, 1993; Matthews,
1998b; Osborne, 1996; Staver, 1998; Tobin, 1993). Science educators tend to recommend
a constructivist-oriented pedagogical approach “that contemplates active participation of
students in the construction of knowledge” (Gil-Pérez et al., 2002, p. 561). The prefer-
ence for this approach may in turn increase the dominance of constructivist epistemology
in science education and NOS research. For example, the aforementioned NOS aspects
proposed by Lederman (2007) seem to favor the constructivist orientation by highlighting
the human-constructed, socioculturally embedded, and the tentative nature of scientific
knowledge. As also evident in the studies reviewed later, the constructivist-oriented VNOS
has typically been suggested as a more sophisticated epistemological stance. Practically,
students’ abilities to provide constructivist-oriented responses to NOS survey questions
have become a goal that most science educators advocate.
While many science educators appreciate the value of constructivist pedagogy, some of
them have provided some critiques about advocating constructivist beliefs as sophisticated
epistemology in science education. Considering that at least half of the philosophical
establishments are not constructivist, Matthews (1998a) criticizes the presumptions to
propose constructivism as “the most mature epistemological commitment” (p. 167). He
further argues that education is not merely about having proper beliefs. More importantly,
an individual needs to have adequate reasons for holding onto these beliefs. By “adequate
reasons,” Matthews refers to the idea that individuals should be able to marshal evidence to
support and criticize their own epistemological positions. In addition, Matthews (1997) has
also reminded science educators of the “unfortunate tendency to judge success in teaching
the nature of science by the degree to which students adopt our views on the subject”
(p. 306). Agreeing with Matthews, other researchers challenge the notion that the focus of
NOS teaching should be on students’ acceptance or rejection of certain view of science.
Rather, students should be engaged in a culture of argumentation (e.g., Sampson & Clark,
2008; Wheeler-Toppen, 2005). Specifically, the instructional commitment can focus more
on how students argue for claims of knowledge by pondering what questions science can
and cannot answer (Smith & Scharmann, 1999), how the data are collected and analyzed
(Ford, 2008a), and whether the evidence can support the propositions (Allchin, 2010).
Furthermore, some researchers have recently challenged the “constructivist as sophisticated
epistemology” idea by addressing the contextual nature of VNOS (e.g., van Eijck, Hsu,
& Roth, 2009). As Clough (2007) states, students who report that science is tentative
without recognizing the durability of well-supported scientific knowledge can hardly be
judged to understand NOS. He thus calls for employing questions (e.g., “In what sense is
scientific knowledge tentative?” and “In what sense is it durable?”) rather than tenets (e.g.,
Science Education
 STUDENTS’ VIEWS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 965

“Scientific knowledge is tentative”) in NOS teaching. In their review, Elby and Hammer
(2001) similarly argue that the “notion that scientific knowledge is tentative and evolving
does not apply equally across all scientific knowledge” (p. 555). They also identify that the
literature about student epistemology may conflate the correctness with productivity of an
epistemological belief. For example, naı̈ve realism, though incorrect according to the broad
agreement of philosophers, may however be productive for students’ successful learning in
science. Besides, they propose a resource-based model (see Hammer & Elby, 2002; Louca,
Elby, Hammer, & Kagey, 2004) that allows researchers and students to better understand
the contextual dependence of epistemologies.
In summary, although science educators acknowledge the existence of some specific dis-
putes, they have recently reached a consensus regarding the meaning of NOS. The meaning
of “sophisticated” VNOS has been interpreted in two main ways: students’ reports of
constructivist-oriented epistemology and their performances in arguing critically for scien-
tific knowledge claims. The consensual understanding of NOS and different interpretations
of sophisticated VNOS are also evident in the empirical studies reviewed later in this paper.
Prior to this review, there were three reviews of research on assessment of and teaching
for students’ VNOS (Lederman, 1992, 2007; Meichtry, 1993). What follows is a concise
discussion about the latest review (Lederman, 2007), which leads to the goals of the current
review.
To better understand the significance of VNOS in science education, Lederman (2007) has
reviewed research work on the assessment/evaluation of VNOS and the effects of curricular
interventions on VNOS. In both reviews, Lederman has specified what NOS is and what key
aspects NOS should include (see the above discussion). He concluded that K-12 students
did not possess “adequate” views of NOS. Their misconceptions of NOS can be attributed to
the ineffectiveness of curricular or instructional approaches, teachers’ “inadequate” VNOS,
and other situational variables such as instructional behaviors, activities, and decisions
implemented within the classroom context. Furthermore, he has offered recommendations
for future studies, including (a) research should focus on what students say specifically about
NOS, (b) exploration of students’ mental process involved in certain learning activities and
how teachers’ VNOS may affect those of students, and (c) systematic test the assumption
that VNOS will enhance students learning of science subject matter.
Although Lederman’s (2007) review has contributed greatly to research on students’
VNOS, it may still be improved. First, his review has focused on studies that are either
“most commonly cited” (Lederman, 1992, p. 332) or “with a primary focus on NOS”
(Lederman, 2007, p. 836). There are some relatively less cited studies (e.g., Lucas & Roth,
1996; Rosebery, Warren, & Conant, 1992; Roth & Alexander, 1997; Roth & Lucas, 1997;
Sandoval, 2003; Sandoval & Millwood, 2005; Sandoval & Reiser, 2004) that contribute
significantly to the NOS research. There are also studies (e.g., Tsai, 1998a; Tsai & Liu,
2005) that did not directly use the term NOS but investigated similar research topics (such
as using “scientific epistemological views” and “scientific epistemological beliefs”) that
were not included in his review. Second, Lederman’s review has put much concern on the
validity issues of the assessment instruments, but they paid little attention to examining
the underlying theoretical frameworks that guide the methods of data collection and anal-
ysis. As we will discuss later, the ways of collecting and analyzing data vary depending
on the frameworks adopted. Third, Lederman’s explanation of the results of intervention
studies can be elaborated. Although Lederman has attempted to tease out several factors
(e.g., curricular activities, teachers’ beliefs and behaviors, etc.) that may facilitate or im-
pede the change of students’ views, the results of the intervention studies especially from
different theoretical frameworks were likely not fully discussed. An examination of theo-
retical frameworks could enhance our understandings of students’ VNOS. Fourth, although
Science Education
966 DENG ET AL.

Lederman (2007) has called for more empirical studies to investigate how students’ VNOS
impacts their learning of science, his review may not provide detailed evidence for showing
such a relation.
The current review aims to address the above points to add more insights for VNOS
research. Empirical studies on students’ VNOS from the social-cultural approach, including
the “less cited studies” are reviewed in this paper. Studies that do not exactly use the term
NOS but share the same research interest are included in this review. Studies investigating
the relation between students’ VNOS and their learning of science are also reviewed.
In addition, this reviews attempts to examine and compare the underlying theoretical
frameworks and research methodologies involved in these studies. This is motivated by the
viewpoint that the interpretation of research findings is mainly affected by the theoretical
framework and related methodology employed (e.g., Crotty, 1998; Sampson & Clark,
2008). Besides, students’ VNOS has been extensively investigated in the past decades.
An examination of both the framework and methodology issues thus seems to be well
timed and important for future research. To achieve this purpose, this review is divided into
two sections: a review of three theoretical frameworks on studying VNOS and a critical
discussion on future directions. Below presents an introduction to the method used to search
and select empirical studies for the review.

METHOD
This review examines empirical research on students’ VNOS ranging from primary
school to postgraduate within the domains of science education. Two techniques were used
to search literature: the online database approach and the ancestry approach. Four online
databases were initially searched with the following keywords: “nature of science,” “NOS
and student∗ ,” “epistemological belief∗ and science,” “epistemological view∗ and scien-
tific,” “epistemology of science and student∗ ,” “scientific epistemology,” and “nature of
scientific knowledge and student∗ .” The databases are Academic Search Premier, ERIC,
Education Research Complete, and PsycINFO. The search resulted in 82 articles that fit the
purpose for this review based on the following inclusion criteria: (a) reported from January
1991 to August 2010; (b) published in English; (c) peer-reviewed journal articles rather than
conference papers, books, book chapters, and dissertations; (d) empirical studies; and (e) in-
volving students’ VNOS. The publication year is chosen to provide a supplementary review
based on Lederman’s (1992) earlier work. Articles chiefly focusing on the development of
questionnaires (e.g., Aikenhead & Ryan, 1992; Chen, 2006; Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick,
Bell, & Schwartz, 2002; Libarkin, 2001) were not included. This is because these arti-
cles principally aim to establish satisfactory reliability and validity with few empirical
data or discussions about students’ VNOS. In addition, articles investigating the VNOS
of preservice teachers (e.g., Akerson, Buzzelli, & Donnelly, 2008; Tsai & Liang, 2009)
were excluded in this review. This was supported by previous literatures that preferred to
assign preservice teachers to the “teacher” rather than the “student” category (e.g., Abd-El-
Khalick & Lederman, 2000a; Lederman, 2007). Preservice teachers possess “dual” roles
of both student and teacher, and they may require different attentions and interpretations.
Based on the above criteria, the ancestry approach helped to identify another 23 articles
by tracing references of the 82 studies. A total of 105 articles were selected for the final
review.
Each article was analyzed by checking (a) publication information (i.e., authors and year
of publication), (b) demographics of participants (e.g., age, gender, sample size, and coun-
try), (c) underlying theoretical framework, (d) data collection method, (e) data analysis
method, and (f) findings including students’ VNOS and their relation to demographics,
Science Education
 STUDENTS’ VIEWS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 967

culture, and learning; and the effects of interventions on changing students’ views. The Ap-
pendix shows a summary of the 105 studies reviewed, listed in theoretical and alphabetical
order. A critical review is presented in the following sections.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS
The 105 reviewed studies can be categorized into three theoretical frameworks. The
unidimension (UD) framework perceives VNOS as a continuum ranging from empiricist to
mixed, and to constructivist perspectives. The multidimension (MD) framework argues that
VNOS are made up of multiple dimensions that are more or less independent. These dimen-
sions do not necessarily develop in a synchronous way. In general, these two-dimension-
oriented frameworks do not seem to focus on the role of context. They also treat VNOS
as certain “entities” held in the minds of the students or cognitive structures possessed by
students. Instead of treating VNOS as properties of individuals, the argumentative resource
(AR) framework suggests that VNOS should be seen as discursive achievements (Roth &
Lucas, 1997) that are illustrated through argumentative resources drawn in practice. The
AR framework also focuses more on whether students can critically reason scientific issues
in an “appropriate” way (e.g., Ford, 2008a, 2008b) rather than whether they can “correctly”
report their VNOS in manners that are consistent with those NOS aspects advocated by
science educators (e.g., McComas & Olson, 1998).
In the remainder of this section, each framework is reviewed in terms of foundation,
methodology, and findings. The foundation part introduces definitions, “preferred” VNOS,
and assumptions of the frameworks. The methodology part focuses on both data collection
(i.e., only data source for analysis reported) and data analysis methods. The findings part
discusses topics such as (a) students’ VNOS, (b) relations between VNOS and demographics
(e.g., gender, age, and cultural background), (c) relations between VNOS and students’
major, (d) relations between VNOS and students’ learning of science, and (e) effects of
interventions on changing students’ VNOS. These are followed by a critical discussion on
methodological issues and strengths and limitations of the framework.

Unidimension Framework
Among the studies reviewed, 11 (10%) were based on the unidimension (UD) frame-
work (Appendix A). Nine of them investigate how students’ VNOS are associated with
other constructs related to learning. These constructs included learning motivation, learn-
ing orientation, preferred learning environments, argument construction, and conceptual
understanding of science content (e.g., Bell & Linn, 2000; Cavallo, Rozman, Blickenstaff,
& Walker, 2003; Songer & Linn, 1991; Tsai, 1998a). Two studies (Bell & Linn, 2000; Tsai,
1999c) explored effects of curricular interventions on changing students’ VNOS.

Foundation. Based on the UD framework, VNOS can be operationally defined as a con-

tinuum ranging from empiricist to constructivist views. The empiricist stance presumes
that scientific knowledge can be discovered through observation, experimentation, or ap-
plication of a universal scientific method (Pomeroy, 1993; Tsai, 1998a). The constructivist
stance posits that scientific knowledge should be seen as constructed tentative reality (Tsai,
2000b). The constructivist view is usually the preferred VNOS by researchers who adopt the
UD framework (e.g., Songer & Linn, 1991; Tsai, 1999b). Furthermore, this framework con-
ceives VNOS as properties of individuals that are independent of the context (see Driver
et al., 1996). Relevant researchers may assume VNOS as rather “unitary” components
Science Education
968 DENG ET AL.

(Hammer & Elby, 2002) of stable personal epistemology. They tend to equate VNOS to the
“conceptions” frequently used in the study of “conceptual understanding” (Elyon & Linn,
1988). As such, VNOS is usually seen as a particular element of cognitive structure. These
foundations influence subsequent selections of methodology.

Methodology of UD Researchers. Generally, the UD researchers employed closed form

instruments and statistical analysis methods in their investigations. For example, to examine
Taiwanese students’ VNOS, Tsai (1998b, 1999a, 1999b, 2000a, 2000b) relied mainly on an
adapted Chinese version of Pomeroy’s (1993) questionnaire. The questionnaire comprises
bipolar agree–disagree statements on a 5-point Likert scale for both nontraditional (con-
structivist) and traditional (empiricist) VNOS. By reversing item responses of expressing
traditional VNOS, the scores of the scale were assumed to represent a unidimensional
assessment of students’ VNOS. High scores indicate the constructivist views, whereas low
scores point to the empiricist views. Students who scored around the middle were usually
labeled as holding both (or “mixed”) views. In addition to closed form instruments, several
studies have employed interviews as another method for data collection. In Tsai’s (1998a)
study, three groups (i.e., empiricist, mixed, and constructivist groups) of students were
chosen for follow-up interviews based on their scores. These selected students were asked
questions such as “what is science” and “what are the characteristics of scientific knowl-
edge.” To acquire a richer understanding of students’ VNOS, Tsai (1999c) has used more
specific interview questions that focused on five dimensions: (a) the theory-laden quality
of scientific exploration, (b) conceptual change of scientific progress, (c) invented reality
of science, (d) cultural impacts on science, and (e) the role of social negotiation in science
community. His findings also implied the potential and necessity of treating students’ VNOS
as comprising multiple dimensions, as advocated by the MD framework discussed later.
The data analyses of these studies were primarily statistical analysis and content analysis.
Correlations were computed by eight studies to explore the relation between students’
VNOS and their learning in science (e.g., Bell & Linn, 2000). One-way ANOVA was used to
examine whether VNOS differed across scientific majors (Cavallo et al., 2003). Independent
t-tests were conducted to compute the effects of intervention on changing students’ VNOS
(e.g., Tsai, 1999c, 2000b). Three studies adopted content analysis (e.g., Songer & Linn,
1991; Tsai, 1998a). Students’ responses were generally categorized as interval positions of
a unidimensional continuum from empiricist to mixed, and to constructivist views.

Findings

Students’ VNOS. A majority of students were found to hold mixed VNOS. For example,
Songer and Linn (1991) reported 15% and 21% of students as holding dynamic (more
constructivist-oriented) and static (more empiricist-aligned) views, respectively. The rest
were reported to express mixed views.

Relation Between VNOS and Demographics. Only one study (Özdem, Çavaş, Çavaş,
Çakıroğlu, & Ertepınar, 2010) investigated this issue. The study explored the VNOS held
by Turkish students ranging from Grade 6 to Grade 8. The eighth graders were found to
express significantly informed VNOS than both sixth and seventh graders. No significant
differences in VNOS were found between the sixth and seventh graders.

Relation Between VNOS and Major. Only one study has examined whether VNOS
differed across science majors. Cavallo et al. (2003) compared the VNOS of biology
majors, physics majors, and physics nonmajors with no significant differences reported.
Science Education
 STUDENTS’ VIEWS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 969

Relations Between VNOS and Learning. Generally, most studies showed positive corre-
lation between students’ VNOS and their learning of science. For example, students holding
constructivist views tended to express preferences toward constructivist-oriented learning
environments (Tsai, 1998a, 1999b, 2000a), show better metacognitive ability (1998b), uti-
lize more conditional inferential reasoning (Tsai, 1999a), and perform better in constructing
argumentation (Bell & Linn, 2000). However, students holding empiricist views were likely
to use rote memorization to enhance their understanding and were mainly motivated by
performance on examinations (e.g., Cavallo et al., 2003; Tsai, 1998a, 1999b). In addi-
tion, Songer and Linn (1991) reported that more sophisticated VNOS were significantly
associated with students’ integrated understanding of relevant physics concepts.

Effects of Curricular Interventions. Two studies investigated the effects of curricular

intervention on students’ VNOS and both reported positive changes. In Tsai’s (1999c) 8-
month study, students who engaged in discussion, inquiry, and history of science activities
expressed more constructivist-oriented VNOS than those taught in a lecture-oriented way.
Follow-up interview data indicated that students who originally held empiricist views
from the experimental group progressed most in their VNOS. Similarly, Bell and Linn
(2005) observed that students’ VNOS shifted from static to dynamic through inquiry and
argumentation activities.

Discussion

Methodological Issues. Two issues related to methodology are identified. First, relying
solely on Likert scale instruments may not adequately assess students’ VNOS (Lederman
& O’Malley, 1990; Lederman, Wade, & Bell, 1998). More specifically, these closed form
instruments seem to assume that respondents view and interpret the items in a way sim-
ilar to that of the instrument developer(s) (Aikenhead, Ryan, & Desautels, 1989). How-
ever, this assumption has been challenged by many researchers (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick &
Lederman, 2000a; Lederman, 2007). In addition, students’ “actual” understanding of NOS
(or epistemic beliefs in science) may not be fully reflected and elucidated based on certain
numerical values (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). Second, most studies (e.g., Cavallo et al., 2003;
Tsai, 2000a) utilized Pearson correlation without controlling other potential factors (e.g.,
gender and age) when examining the relation between students’ VNOS and their learning.
This may produce seemingly “plausible” significant correlations. As shown later, students’
VNOS were found to be related to their gender and age. Thus, controlling relevant factors
may help to enhance the validity of the findings.

Strengths and Limitations of the Framework. A major strength of the UD framework is

that it allows quick assessment of students’ VNOS. However, it poses at least two limitations.
First, it may be too simplistic to treat VNOS as one continuum. For instance, while Tsai
(1999c) treated VNOS as a unidimensional continuum when conducting statistical analysis,
he found it necessary to break the continuum into five dimensions during the interviews.
This limitation is addressed by the multidimension framework to be discussed below. A
second limitation is its assumption that VNOS is coherent and stable across contexts. Such
an assumption has recently been challenged (e.g., van Eijck et al., 2009). For example, some
students were found to express different VNOS on different survey questions (e.g., Songer
& Linn, 1991). Researchers adopting this framework may treat such views as “intermediate”
between the two extremes. However, they seldom interpret this phenomenon by considering
the assumptions of the framework itself. To students, each survey question/item may invoke
certain context or even certain teachers that may favor a production of either empiricist
Science Education
970 DENG ET AL.

or constructivist views. Thus, it may be rather arbitrary to assign students to any VNOS
groups without taking context into account.

Multidimension Framework
Rather than treating VNOS as unidimensional, many researchers have advocated VNOS
as consisting of multiple dimensions. Eighty-five (81%) studies of this review employed
the multidimension (MD) framework (see Appendix A). These studies dealt with the
examination of different dimensions of students’ VNOS and how these dimensions may
relate to students’ demographics, majors, and their learning of science. Thirty-nine of them
focused on implementing varied curricular interventions to change students’ VNOS (see
Appendix B).

Foundation. Unlike the UD framework, the MD framework treats VNOS as a system of

more-or-less independent dimensions. The MD framework contends that students’ VNOS
may not necessarily develop in a coherent manner, and that the correlations among the
dimensions are not precluded.
Although different dimensions have been stressed in various studies, how students view
the following 10 key aspects of NOS have been commonly investigated: (a) source of
scientific knowledge (e.g., Vhurumuku, Holtman, Mikalsen, & Kolsto, 2006), (b) imagina-
tive/creative nature of science (e.g., Tsai & Liu, 2005), (c) theory-laden nature of science
(e.g., Liu & Tsai, 2008), (d) empirical nature of scientific knowledge (e.g., Khishfe &
Lederman, 2007), (e) nature of scientific methods (e.g., Dogan & Abd-El-Khalick, 2008),
(f) nature of and distinction between observation and inference (e.g., Akerson & Donnelly,
2010; Kim & McKinney, 2007), (g) nature of and relationships between theories and laws
(e.g., Leach, Hind, & Ryder, 2003), (h) changing nature of scientific knowledge (e.g.,
Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, 2004), (i) coherent nature of scientific knowledge (e.g.,
Hammer, 1994; Lin, Chiu, & Chou, 2004), and (j) socially and culturally embedded nature
of science (e.g., Constantinou, Hadjilouca, & Papadouris, 2010; Ryder, Leach, & Driver,
1999).
Each of the 10 dimensions can be conceptualized as a continuum ranging from posi-
tivist/empiricist to constructivist/relativist perspectives (see Bell, 2006; Lederman, 2007;
McComas, 1996; Crowther, Lederman, & Lederman, 2005). Usually, positivist/empiricist
views are labeled as naı̈ve or inadequate views, whereas the constructivist/relativist views
are labeled as informed or adequate. The 10 continuums are listed below.

• Source of scientific knowledge ranges from knowledge as transmitted from authority

figures (e.g., scientists, textbooks, and teachers) to as constructed by individuals.
• The imaginative/creative nature of science ranges from scientific knowledge as free
of human imagination/creativity to as a product imagination and creativity.
• The theory-laden nature of science ranges from science as unaffected by scientists’
personal backgrounds to as influenced by their existing theories/biases.
• Empirical nature of scientific knowledge ranges from scientific knowledge as based
on logic/faith to as derived from observations and data.
• The nature of scientific method ranges from acknowledging a universal step-by-step
scientific method to appreciating multiple methods for solving scientific problems.
• The nature of and distinction between observation and inference ranges from an
inability to coordinate theory and evidence to an awareness of the difference between
them.
Science Education
 STUDENTS’ VIEWS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 971

• The nature of and relationship between theories and laws ranges from assuming a
hierarchical relationship between theories and laws to treating them as two kinds of
knowledge representations independent from each other.
• The changing nature of scientific knowledge ranges from scientific knowledge as
unchanged to as tentative (but relatively stable).
• The coherent nature of scientific knowledge ranges from scientific knowledge as
a collection of isolated pieces to as unified system of interrelated concepts and
principle.
• The socially and culturally embedded nature of science ranges from as irrelevant
with society and culture to as affected by social and cultural factors.

Similar to the UD framework, the MD framework treats VNOS as certain properties

(e.g., conceptions) possessed by individuals. For example, many researchers (e.g., Afonso
& Gilbert, 2010; Akerson & Volrich, 2006; Şahin & Köksal, 2010) used the term “miscon-
ception” to depict those VNOS that did not satisfy national curriculum documents (e.g.,
NRC, 1996). Influenced by “conceptual understanding” research, most researchers applied
the “conceptual change model” (CCM) (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982) to design
curricular interventions for the purpose of changing students’ VNOS from the “incorrect”
to the “correct” ones (see Hsu & Roth, 2010). The CCM has also been widely adopted to
assess and interpret the effects of the interventions. Another similarity shared by the UD and
MD frameworks is that both posit VNOS as relatively stable and coherent across contexts.
The MD researchers may assume that students’ VNOS can be represented through their
responses to survey and interview questions. More discussion on the methodology issue is
provided below.

Methodology of MD Researchers. Compared to the UD framework, the MD studies rely

less solely on closed form instruments and statistical analysis. Instead, they have gradually
underlined the roles of both data triangulation and method triangulation.
Among the 85 MD studies, three formats of instruments were used for data collection,
including closed form instruments (e.g., Likert scale and multiple-choice questionnaire),
semiopen form instruments (e.g., multiple-choice questionnaire with self-generated op-
tions), and open form instruments (e.g., open-ended questionnaire, interviews, essay). Only
11 (13%) investigations (e.g., Chai, Deng, Qian, & Wong, 2010; Liang, Lee, & Tsai,
2010) relied solely on Likert scale. However, closed form instruments may fail to capture
the respondents’ “real” perspectives that may be distinct from those predesigned options.
To address this issue, four (5%) studies (e.g., Solomon, Scott, & Duveen, 1996; Tabak &
Weinstock, 2005) used semiopen form instruments. This type of instrument usually provides
sets of alternative “student position” statements (Lederman et al., 1998) and sometimes an
additional “others” option to capture viewpoints beyond the instrument. Fifty-two (about
61%) of the 85 MD studies employed open form instruments to assess students’ VNOS
(see Appendix A). Open-ended questionnaire and semistructured interviews are two popu-
lar ways to solicit students’ VNOS. To enhance the trustworthiness of their investigations,
most researchers (e.g., Akerson & Abd-El-Khalick, 2005; Peters & Kitsantas, 2010) used
a mixed approach. Several researchers (e.g., Kalman, 2010; Kim & McKinney, 2007) have
also advocated the use of open-ended essay. The remaining 18 (21%) studies (e.g., Ibrahim,
Buffler, & Lubben, 2009; Leach, Millar, Ryder, & Sere, 2000) preferred the combination
of closed and (semi-)open form instruments for data triangulation purpose.
Similar to the UD framework, this framework employed statistical analysis and con-
tent analysis as the main methods of data analysis. Out of the 85 studies reviewed, 13
Science Education
972 DENG ET AL.

(15%) studies adopted only statistical analysis, 47 (55%) employed merely content anal-
ysis, and the remaining 25 (29%) used both (see Appendix A). The statistical analyses
include parametric test (e.g., t-test), nonparametric test (e.g., chi-square, Mann–Whitney
U -test, and Wilcoxon test), ANOVA, and multiple linear regression. They are used to
examine the effects of curricular interventions on students’ VNOS (e.g., Kim & Irving,
2010; Peters & Kitsantas, 2010), and how students VNOS may associate with their demo-
graphics (e.g., Constantinou et al., 2010; Wen, Kuo, Tsai, & Chang, 2010), majors (e.g.,
Miller, Montplaisir, Offerdahl, Cheng, & Ketterling, 2010), and learning of science (e.g.,
Stathopoulou & Vosniadou, 2007). Furthermore, principal component analysis is employed
to determine the constructs that most affect students’ VNOS (e.g., Bezzi, 1999). As for the
content analysis used by the 72 studies, both a priori and a posteriori approaches can be
identified. Specifically, 42 (58%) studies used the a priori approach. Students’ responses
to the open-ended questionnaire and/or interviews were classified into predetermined di-
mensions (e.g., tentative, creative, and theory-laden nature of science) originated from
literatures. These responses were then labeled as naı̈ve/inadequate, transitional, or in-
formed/adequate conceptions of NOS (e.g., Akerson & Abd-El-Khalick, 2005) according
to the preferred VNOS. Also, several researchers categorized students’ responses into lev-
els that privilege the relativist/constructivist views (e.g., Smith & Wenk, 2006; Thoermer
& Sodian, 2002). The effects of curricular interventions were then assessed accordingly
(e.g., Khishfe, 2008; Moss, Brams, & Robb, 2001). In contrast, the other 30 (42%) studies
adopting the a posteriori approach analyzed students’ responses without any preassumed
categories (e.g., Dagher & BouJaoude, 2005; Dagher, Brickhouse, Shipman, & Letts, 2004;
Walker & Zeidler, 2007). They tended to explore new dimensions of VNOS rather than
judging VNOS as adequate or not.

Findings. The MD studies generally showed that students’ VNOS varies from one
dimension to another. Only views of certain dimensions of NOS were found to be as-
sociated with students’ learning of science. Most interventions studies involving inquiry,
discussion, and reflection activities appeared to be “effective” in changing students’
VNOS.

Students’ VNOS. By and large, students seemed to hold empiricist views toward cer-
tain dimensions and constructivist views toward others. Many studies have consistently
shown that students (from primary school to university levels) express empiricist/objectivist
VNOS. For example, these students tended to view scientific knowledge as numbers and
concepts that can be transmitted by textbooks (e.g., Hammer, 1994; Larochelle & Desautels,
1991). They were more likely to acknowledge the existence of an objectively existing truth
that can be discovered by scientists (e.g., Chai et al., 2010). Besides, they were usu-
ally unable to distinguish scientific theories from scientific laws, hypotheses, facts, and
evidence (e.g., Parker, Krockover, Lasher-Trapp, & Eichinger, 2008). However, several
studies showed that most students recognize that scientific knowledge is tentative and that
science is affected by scientists’ existing theories and their social/cultural values (e.g., Ryan
& Aikenhead, 1992; Walker & Zeidler, 2007). Furthermore, the dimensions of students’
VNOS were reported to be more or less correlated with one another. Some studies (e.g., Liu
& Tsai, 2008; Tsai & Liu, 2005) have reported significant correlation only among certain
dimensions. In other investigations, however, all the dimensions studied were found to be
significantly correlated with one another (e.g., Chai et al., 2010; Lin & Tsai, 2008; Smith &
Wenk, 2006; Stathopoulou & Vosniadou, 2007). The correlation coefficients representing
these “significances” range from .09 to .57.
Science Education
 STUDENTS’ VIEWS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 973

Relations Between VNOS and Demographics. Inconclusive results regarding the rela-
tions between VNOS and gender were observed. For example, several studies have reported
that male students show more constructivist orientation than female students on certain di-
mensions of VNOS, such as the changing and creative nature of science (e.g., Tsai, 2006;
Tsai & Liu, 2005) and the socially and culturally embedded nature of science (Huang, Tsai,
& Chang, 2005). A few studies (e.g., Conley, Pintrich, Vekiri, & Harrison, 2004; Dogan &
Abd-El-Khalick, 2008; Liu & Tsai, 2008) have shown nonsignificant gender differences in
VNOS.
As for the relation between VNOS and age, equivocal findings were reported. Three
studies have identified age-related trends in students’ VNOS. Older students (aged 16–
18) tended to hold constructivist VNOS than younger students (aged 9–12) on the nature
of scientific theory (Solomon et al., 1996), the distinction between theory and evidence
(Leach, 1999), and the empirical nature of science (Leach, Driver, Millar, & Scott, 1997).
Two studies (Tsai, 2006; Huang et al., 2005) reported that developmental trends were
evident in only certain dimension (e.g., imaginative and creative nature of science) rather
than others. However, no clear developmental progression was observed in other studies
(e.g., Constantinou et al., 2010; Kang, Scharmann, & Noh, 2005; Tabak & Weinstock,
2005; Tamir, 1994; Thoermer & Sodian, 2002).
Cultural differences in students’ VNOS have been recognized (e.g., Griffiths & Barman,
1995; Sutherland & Dennick, 2002). For example, Karabenick and Moosa (2005) have
reported that students from non-Western countries are more inclined toward empiricist
VNOS. Huang et al. (2005) found that among the Taiwanese adolescents, the non-aboriginal
students may hold more constructivist VNOS than aboriginal students on the invented,
changing, and the cultural embedded nature of science. They, however, did not differ
significantly in their views of the role of social negotiation in science.

Relations Between VNOS and Major. Studies generally showed that differences in
major can be observed in certain dimensions of VNOS (e.g., Chai et al., 2010; Miller et al.,
2010). In Liu and Tsai’s (2008) study, nonscience undergraduates scored significantly
higher (i.e., holding more constructivist-oriented VNOS) than science undergraduates on
the theory-laden and cultural dimensions. However, they scored significantly lower than
their counterparts on the social and inventive nature of science. No significant differences
were observed between two groups on the changing nature of science.

Relations Between VNOS and Learning. Generally, only certain dimensions of VNOS
were found to be significantly correlated with science learning (e.g., Lin & Tsai, 2008;
Stathopoulou & Vosniadou, 2007). For instance, students’ views on the nature of scientific
method were found to significantly predict their problem-solving strategies (Lin et al.,
2004). Students who treated scientific knowledge as tentative significantly tended to express
a deep motive for learning science, and those who perceived scientific knowledge as from
external authorities tended to employ surface strategies to learn science (Liang et al., 2010).
In addition, several studies (Yerrick, 2000; Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, & Simmons, 2002) have
shown the role of students’ VNOS in their argumentation of science claims. For example,
Sadler et al (2004) reported that students’ appreciation of the socially embedded nature of
science may influence their argumentation regarding socioscientific issues. These finding
may also lend support to the argumentative resource framework to be discussed later.

Effects of Curricular Interventions. Adopting the MD framework, 36 studies have

employed either implicit or explicit approaches to change or develop students’ VNOS.
The implicit approach suggests that VNOS is a learning outcome that can be automat-
ically developed through engagement in scientific inquiry activities (Abd-El-Khalick &
Science Education
974 DENG ET AL.

Lederman, 2000a). The latter, however, raises students’ awareness of NOS through their
discussion and reflection activities (Khishfe & Lederman, 2007). This approach advo-
cates that NOS should be explicitly targeted and integrated in science learning activities
(Lederman, 2007). In terms of changing students’ VNOS (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman,
2000a), the explicit approach is generally more advantageous than the implicit approach.
As shown in Appendix B, about 88% of (15/17) explicit studies have reported recognizable
(i.e., the studies that did not conduct statistical tests but found some observable changes,
e.g., Akerson & Donnelly, 2010; Khishfe & Lederman, 2007) or statistically significant
changes (e.g., Khishfe, 2008; Miller et al., 2010) in students’ VNOS. By contrast, only 47%
(9/19) of the implicit studies identified changes in students’ VNOS (e.g., Ibáñez-Orcajo
& Martı́nez-Aznar, 2007; Smith, Maclin, Houghton, & Hennessey, 2000). This synthesis
aligns with the findings of three studies (e.g., Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002; Kurdziel
& Libarkin, 2002; Peters & Kitsantas, 2010) that compare the relative effectiveness of the
two approaches. Generally, these results concur with Lederman’s (2007) suggestion that
“conceptions of NOS are best learned through explicit, reflective instruction as opposed
to implicitly through experiences with simply ‘doing’ science” (p. 869). However, recog-
nizable (e.g., Irwin, 2000; Ryder & Leach, 1999) and significant changes (e.g., Conley et
al., 2004; Ibáñez-Orcajo & Martı́nez-Aznar, 2007; Smith et al., 2000) have been evident
in several implicit studies. As also noticed by McDonald (2010), this phenomenon does
not align with a widely acknowledged notion that explicit NOS instruction is necessary
for changing learners’ VNOS. This thus leads to a rethinking about the “implicit–explicit”
categorization. A closer look at the learning activities may help to illuminate the above
“conflict.” All the “successful” intervention studies generally involve learning activities
such as inquiry, discussion, reflection, and/or argumentation. This phenomenon can also
be seen in other studies adopting the UD (e.g., Bell & Linn, 2000; Tsai, 1999c) and AR
frameworks (e.g., Ford, 2008b; Sandoval, 2003). More detailed discussion on these four
activities is presented later.

Discussion
Methodological Issues. Two methodological issues have been identified. First, most
researchers who prefer closed form instruments (e.g., Likert scale) may not often validate
their instrument in a rigorous manner. Specifically, many studies (e.g., Meichtry, 1992;
Sutherland & Dennick, 2002) used Cronbach’s α to represent the “reliability” of the instru-
ments. As critiqued by others (e.g., Kline, 2005), using only Cronbach’s α may neglect the
effects of measurement error. Also, the value of Cronbach’s α usually increases as the num-
ber of items increases (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). It is suggested that
confirmatory factor analysis be conducted to enhance both the reliability and the validity
of the instrument (Thompson, 2008). Second, most researchers tended to use open form in-
struments (e.g., open-ended questionnaire and interviews) for data collection and adopt the
a priori coding approach for data analysis. These methods, however, may not fully address
the context-dependent nature of VNOS. Researchers may still “fail to consider contextual
nuances, resulting in potentially misleading diagnoses of students’ epistemologies” (Elby &
Hammer, 2001). For example, relevant studies have commonly reported either inconsistent
or “uncategorized” responses from students (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000b;
Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002; Leach et al., 2000).
Strengths and Limitations of the Framework. The strengths of the MD framework can
be understood in two ways. First, this framework advocates that students’ VNOS may be
a system of dimensions that are more or less independent of one another. In this sense, it
examines VNOS in a more “elaborate” manner when compared to the UD framework. As
Science Education
 STUDENTS’ VIEWS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 975

shown in many investigations (e.g., Miller et al., 2010; Parker et al., 2008), students may
hold empiricist views toward certain dimensions but constructivist views toward others.
Moreover, the unrecognizable relation between VNOS and academic major reported by
Cavallo and coworkers (2003) can be partly attributed to the “coarse” nature of the UD
framework. As several studies (e.g., Liu & Tsai, 2008) reported, differences arising from
academic majors were observed in only certain dimensions. Second, it facilitates the devel-
opment of a pivotal line of research that relates VNOS to students’ demographics, academic
majors, and their learning in science. Assessing VNOS with quantitative methodology is
an efficient and convenient way to investigate these relations. This is a very important con-
tribution to the research field of the MD framework and a potential area for future studies.
For example, researchers can explore the correlations between VNOS and various variables
pertaining to science learning.
However, the assumption of the MD framework may be its limitation as well. Similar
to the UD framework, this framework may oversimplify the role of context in VNOS. It
posits that students possess relatively stable conceptions of NOS that may be expressed
coherently across different contexts. Students’ responses to survey items, open-ended ques-
tionnaire, and interviews are accordingly seen as reliable representation of their VNOS in
all contexts of learning. This assumption is increasingly challenged by many empirical
studies (Sandoval & Morrison, 2003; Thoermer & Sodian, 2002). For instance, students
were found to draw on various representations of NOS when responding to either con-
textualized or decontextualized questions (Leach et al., 2000). Similarly, some researchers
(e.g., Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000b) also reported that students expressed “naı̈ve”
VNOS toward certain questions while “informed” toward others. Several researchers rec-
ognize this limitation when they discuss the effects of curricular interventions. They argue
that students’ VNOS may be affected by situational factors such as the nature of learning
context (e.g., Khishfe & Lederman, 2007), the roles of teachers (e.g., Meichtry, 1992), and
the interactions among students (e.g., Bell, Blair, Crawford, & Lederman, 2003).

Argumentative Resource Framework

The limitations of the dimensional frameworks can be addressed by the argumentative
resource (AR) framework. The AR studies focus on how students employ argumentative
resources to construct and justify claims about the natural world and/or how science works.
How curricular interventions may affect students’ uses of argumentative resources has also
been explored. Although only nine studies adopted this framework, it is significant enough
to warrant a separate and detailed review.

Foundation. Rather than referring to VNOS as dimension(s), the AR framework focuses

more on whether students argue scientific claims in an appropriate manner rather than
whether they possess informed declarative knowledge of NOS. The term “argumentative
resource” can be interpreted in two ways. First, it can be treated as interpretative repertoires
(IR) (also named “discursive resources”), which has its origins in a pioneering sociological
study (Gilbert & Mulkay, 1984) that describes how scientists express their actions and epis-
temologies in contextually appropriate manners. The concept of IR has been later developed
as both a theoretical and analytical concept used in some forms of discourse analysis (Potter
& Wetherell, 1987). It is usually referred to as “relatively internally consistent, bounded
language units” (Wetherell & Potter, 1988, p. 171) or “basically a lexicon or register of
terms and metaphors drawn upon to characterize and evaluate actions and events” (Potter
& Wetherell, 1987, p. 138). IR can be seen as parcel of any community’s common sense
Science Education
976 DENG ET AL.

and socially shared by the members of a culture (Edley, 2001). They also allow researchers
to capture how the content of discourse is produced rather than what the content is (Hsu &
Roth, 2009). More information on the identification and interpretation of IR can be found
in several recent studies (e.g., Reis & Roth, 2007; Roth, 2008).
Second, the term “argumentative resource” can be alternatively interpreted as a grasp of
practice (GOP) that consists of two intertwined resources, namely construction and critique
of scientific claims. Practice can be seen as a disciplinary and goal-directed activity (Rouse,
1996). Its goal is to achieve community consensus regarding the most exploratory account
that best confirms to the natural phenomena (Ford, 2008b). Thus, a GOP involves knowing
how to produce coherently acceptable claims (e.g., Rosebery et al., 1992; Sandoval &
Millwood, 2005) through the interactions among the roles of constructors, critics, and the
natural world investigated. The process of GOP may be consistent with other sociocultural
learning theories such as internalization (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978) and enculturation (e.g.,
Rogoff, 2003; Wertsch, 1998) that emphasize the dynamic interactions between individuals
and social environments. A four-stage model proposed by Ford (2008b) may provide a better
understanding of this process. First, a claim constructor needs to collect and analyze data
in her/his laboratory. S/he then presents the claim to the social community. The community
evaluates and critiques the validity of the claim by examining the ways of data collection
and analysis. If an insufficient connection between the account of nature and the natural
phenomena is recognized, the constructor then returns to her/his laboratory and modify
methods of data collection and/or analysis. The constructor returns to the community with
refined claims, and these iterative processes are tentatively concluded when the claim
is socially accepted. In brief, a GOP involves the abilities to use the constructions and
critiques argumentative resources in an integrated manner at different times. It also requires
individuals’ awareness that coherently acceptable claims should be grounded on available
data/evidence (Sandoval, 2003; Sandoval & Reiser, 2004).
As mentioned above, the AR framework emphasizes whether students can appropriately
argue scientific claims rather than whether they express constructivist-oriented VNOS.
Owing to the two alternative interpretations of argumentative resource, the term “appropri-
ately” is accordingly understood in two alternative ways. From the IR perspective, students
are expected to “develop more varied and deeper discursive resources for critiquing and
supporting” (Roth & Lucas, 1997, p. 175) claims on the nature of science. From the GOP
perspective, an appropriate reaction to scientific claims involves “knowing how, under what
circumstances, and why to critique them” (Ford, 2008b, p. 150). Apparently, the AR frame-
work and the dimensional frameworks (UD and MD) appear to underline different learning
outcomes. They in fact address students’ VNOS with different emphases. More specif-
ically, both UD and MD pay more attention to students’ professed VNOS, whereas AR
focuses more on students enacted VNOS. The former refers to reported views or declarative
knowledge about NOS, whereas the latter refers to situated views that can be embodied
through discourse and/or behavior during inquiry, discussion, and argumentation activities
(see Bricker & Bell, 2008; Ford, 2008a; Kelly & Takao, 2002; Sampson & Clark, 2008).
Generally, these two types of views are substantially different from each other (e.g., San-
doval, 2005; Tobin & McRobbie, 1997). In addition, the above “professed-versus-enacted”
categorization also gains both theoretical and empirical support from the field of personal
epistemology (e.g., Hammer & Elby, 2002; Hofer, 2008; Louca et al., 2004).
The AR framework also differs from the UD and MD frameworks in their assumptions.
As discussed, both the UD and MD frameworks seem to posit VNOS as coherent and
relatively stable mental models owned by individuals (Hsu & Roth, 2010). They also
assume that students’ discourse (e.g., written and oral) to the open-ended questionnaire or
interviews can neutrally represent students’ “enduring cognitive representation” (Edwards,
Science Education
 STUDENTS’ VIEWS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 977

1993, p. 208) of NOS. Such an assumption seems to be greatly influenced by Piaget’s

(1928, 1929) early work on the relation between discourse and mind. However, the AR
framework assumes VNOS as discursive achievements that vary according to contexts
rather than context-free features possessed by individuals (Zeyer & Roth, 2009). Instead
of interpreting discourse as evidence showing what individuals have already known, this
framework advocates discourse be examined for how individuals argue claims about NOS.
That is, this framework deals with discourse as action (Edwards, 1993; Potter, 2004) or a
topic (Lee & Roth, 2004; Potter, Stringer, & Wetherell, 1984), rather than as a “product of
mental entities” (Potter & Wetherell, 1987, p. 157). This assumption is further elaborated
upon below.

Methodology of AR Researchers. The nine studies using this framework prefer to col-
lect data through interview and observation methods. They generally favor the discourse
analysis method for data analysis. Some AR researchers contend that discourse “reflects
the communities and language games in which they participate, for there are no private
languages” (Roth & Lucas, 1997, p. 147). Language mainly constitutes, maintains, and
reconstitutes “reality” rather than represents it (Rorty, 1989). The AR researchers there-
fore treat language as a cultural tool (e.g., Danziger, 1997; Mercer & Littleton, 2007) for
students to construct their explanations of natural phenomena and/or NOS. Thus, when
analyzing data, these researchers concentrate more on how the discourse is constructed
rather than the content of the discourse itself. For example, Roth and his colleagues (e.g.,
Roth & Alexander, 1997; Roth & Lucas, 1997) have explored how students draw on various
argumentative resources to argue NOS claims. Students’ discussion and their performance
observed during inquiry activities were also collected as data to examine students’ utiliza-
tion of argumentative resources (e.g., Ford, 2008b). To enhance the trustworthiness of their
work, most AR researchers tend to collect multiple data (e.g., interviews and essays) when
investigating how students argue science claims.

Findings

Students’ VNOS. Studies consistently showed that students draw on various argumen-
tative resources to argue claims about NOS. When analyzing how students talked about
the ontology, epistemology, and sociology of science, Roth and Lucas (1997) have identi-
fied nine argumentative resources students utilized to buttress and critique claims. These
resources included intuitive, religious, rational, empiricist, historical, perceptual, repre-
sentational, authoritative, and cultural repertoires. Similar to Gilbert and Mulkay’s (1984)
findings, students were consistently found to employ discursive devices (e.g., the “as-long-
as-it-works-take-it-as-truth” and “true-will-out” devices) to mediate their conflicting claims
(e.g., Lucas & Roth, 1996; Roth & Alexander, 1997). In another study (van Eijck et al.,
2009), students seemed to draw on different argumentative resources to interpret even the
same term (e.g., “bacterial source tracking”) within various contexts. Besides, students
were found to utilize argumentative resources (e.g., constructions and critiques) to make
and justify claims and conclusions based on the data available (e.g., Ford, 2008b; Rosebery
et al., 1992; Sandoval, 2003).

Relations Between VNOS and Learning. Equivocal evidences regarding the relations
between VNOS and learning were reported. A case study (Lucas & Roth, 1996) worked
on the relation between VNOS and learning strategy, as well as its evolution over time.
The results indicated that changes in two students’ views on NOS and their learning
strategy were not always complementary. Specifically, although students have changed
Science Education
978 DENG ET AL.

their epistemological claims and extended their argumentative resources over the course,
their strategies of learning physics did not undergo similar change. However, Sandoval’s
(2003) study implied that students’ skillful uses of argumentative resources allowed to
providing causally coherent explanations of content knowledge (e.g., natural selection).

Effects of Curricular Interventions. Four studies have identified recognizable effects

of interventions on facilitating students’ uses of argumentative resources (see Appendix
B). By engaging students in a 15-month physics course comprising inquiry, discussion,
reading, and reflection activities, two investigations (Lucas & Roth, 1996; Roth & Lucas,
1997) analyzed high school students’ argumentation of NOS claims and the argumentative
resources used before and after the intervention. Generally, there was a considerable change
in students’ epistemological claims, but there was little change in their ontological and so-
ciological claims. However, most students appeared to develop more extensive and varied
argumentative resources to support their claims of NOS. The authors attributed the findings
to their intervention that provides more opportunities for students to construct, negotiate,
and critique NOS claims. Interestingly, several students were found to employ the same
repertoires although they changed their epistemological stance after the intervention. In
another study (Ford, 2008b), sixth-grade students were engaged in inquiry, argumentation,
and discussion activities. They were ultimately assessed with an unfamiliar experimental
task. Results indicated that students seemed to actively use argumentative resources (e.g.,
constructions and critiques) during the assessment. The authors thus argued that students
have achieved a GOP beyond mere execution of methods or procedures. Through similar
learning activities, students were able to appropriate argumentative resources to construct
and evaluate scientific explanations for natural phenomena (e.g., Rosebery et al., 1992;
Sandoval, 2003; Sandoval & Millwood, 2005; Sandoval & Reiser, 2004). These studies
reaffirmed the role of inquiry, discussion, reflection, and argumentation activities in facili-
tating students’ VNOS.

Discussion

Methodological Issues. Some possible inconsistencies between methodology and the-

oretical commitment were recognized in a few studies. For instance, the researchers (e.g.,
Rosebery et al., 1992; Roth & Lucas, 1997) have analyzed argumentative resources based
on students’ pre- and postresponses to interview and/or their written reflective essays.
However, this may not attend to the assumption of the AR framework that highlights the
contextual dependencies of VNOS. As Elby and Hammer (2001) suggests, contextualizing
interviews and employing more naturalistic methods may help to address this issue. Specif-
ically, more “process” data (e.g., classroom discourse and performance) during the teaching
interventions can be collected. Analyses of these data may allow for a deeper understanding
of how students’ VNOS is enacted in practice. More discussion will be presented later.

Strengths and Limitations of the Framework. The most important contribution of the
AR framework lies in its emphasis on the role of context in forming individuals’ VNOS.
Such a role has also been gradually recognized by studies (e.g., Khishfe & Lederman, 2007;
Leach et al., 2000) adopting the multidimension framework. As discussed above, the AR
framework dissents with the notions that VNOS are relatively stable conceptions stored in
individuals’ minds and that discourse can be treated as pictures of mind. It focuses on how
students construct their discourse to support and critique scientific claims within different
contexts.
However, the AR framework faces at least three limitations. First, it is difficult to apply
this framework to a large group of students. It mainly helps identify patterns within specific
Science Education
 STUDENTS’ VIEWS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 979

learning contexts that may not necessarily applicable to other contexts since VNOS in AR
is treated as sensitive to context. Second, the interpretative repertoires have been criticized
for being rather difficult to be used as an analytical tool (Silverman, 2001). As argued by
others, analysis of interpretative repertoires usually requires researchers’ high familiarity
with their data (Edley, 2001) and “involves following hunches and the development of
tentative interpretative schemes which may need to be abandoned or revised” (Wetherell
& Potter, 1988, p. 177). Third, the criteria for judging the sophisticated VNOS may
need further refinement. As argued by Roth and Lucas (1997), more varied and deeper
argumentative resources may indicate a development of critical stance. However, such a
criterion seems relatively vague and coarse. On the one hand, the authors did not explicitly
expound what they mean by “deeper.” On the other hand, using the frequency of the
argumentative resources as the only indicator to represent the sophistication of VNOS may
be less comprehensive. On the contrary, Sandoval’s (2003) criterion that addresses both
conceptual and epistemological aspects of students’ argumentation seems more specific
and powerful (also see Sampson & Clark, 2008, for a review). Such a difference in criterion
may help to interpret the above inconsistent findings regarding the relation between VNOS
and learning (e.g., Lucas & Roth, 1996; Sandoval, 2003).

SUMMARY
After reviewing the 105 studies, the major conclusions are summarized in Table 1.
According to these main conclusions, seven “generalizations” can be identified:

• The studies reviewed can be generally categorized into three theoretical frameworks.
The UD and MD frameworks treat VNOS as individual properties independent of
context. The AR framework regards VNOS as discursive achievements sensitive to
context.
• From the UD to MD and to the AR framework, the research emphasis moves from
what students say about NOS (e.g., professed VNOS) to how students construct
argumentation of scientific claims (e.g., enacted VNOS). The interpretation of “so-
phisticated” VNOS accordingly shifts from “constructivist claims” to “appropriate
argumentation.”
• From the UD to MD and to the AR framework, dominant methodology adopted shifts
from quantitative to qualitative. Most studies suggest the collection of multiple data
sources. Content analysis is a predominant method for data analysis.
• The UD and MD studies show that K-16 students generally express “mixed” VNOS.
The AR studies indicate that students can employ argumentative resources to critically
construct and justify scientific claims.
• Studies indicate inconclusive results regarding the relations between VNOS and
gender and age. Differences related to culture and subject major in students’ VNOS
are generally recognized.
• Effective interventions generally involve inquiry, discussion, reflection, and/or argu-
mentation activities.
• Students’ VNOS is, by and large, positively related to learning in science.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Based on the above review, this section puts forth suggestions for future research. These
suggestions are organized into three broad categories: theoretical implications, method-
ological implications, and pedagogical implications.
Science Education
 980

TABLE 1
Summary of Research on Students’ Views of Nature of Science (VNOS) by Three Theoretical Frameworks
Framework Unidimension Multidimension Argumentative Resource
Foundation Definition VNOS is one continuum from VNOS consists multiple VNOS is illustrated via
DENG ET AL.

empiricist to constructivist dimensions employing argumentative

resources in practice
Sophisticated VNOS Constructivist Constructivist/relativist Critically argue scientific claims
Assumption Views are individual properties and independent of the Views are discursive
contexts in which the views are enacted achievements and dependent
on context
Methodology Data collection Likert scale; interviews; Likert scale, open-ended Classroom discourse,
true–false/short-answer items questionnaire, essay, observation, essay, interviews
interviews
Data analysis Statistical analysis, content analysis for UD and MD Discourse analysis
Findings Students’ VNOS Most are mixed, few Few express preferred VNOS Use various argumentative
constructivist across dimensions resources to argue scientific
claims
Relation to gender Not investigated Equivocal results Not investigated
Relation to age Recognizable relation Equivocal results Not investigated
Relation to culture Not investigated Recognizable relation Not investigated
Relation to major Unrecognizable relation Recognizable relation Not investigated
Relation to learning Recognizable relation Weak relation
Curricular Inquiry, discussion, reflection, argumentation, history of science
intervention

Science Education
 STUDENTS’ VIEWS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 981

Theoretical Implications
Suggestion 1: A Reexamination of The MD Framework. Future studies can examine the
extent to which NOS dimensions are independent. As the MD framework suggests, VNOS
is a system of more-or-less independent dimensions that may not develop in a coherent way.
However, it remains unclear as to the degree of the independence among these dimensions.
As reviewed above, a group of studies have generally showed significant correlations
among at least some dimensions investigated with correlation coefficients ranging from .09
to .57 (e.g., Liu & Tsai, 2008; Tsai & Liu, 2005). Disagreement exists among quantitative
researchers about whether the effect size of correlation should be expressed as the squared
or unsquared r family statistic. The squared r (r 2 ) has been commonly used because it
indicates the percentage of the total variance of the dependent variable that can be predicted
by the independent variable (Leech, Barrett, & Morgan, 2005). However, some statisticians
(e.g., Cohen, 1988) advocates the uses of the unsquared r because r 2 usually shows small
percentages that may underestimate the strength or importance of the effect. Examining
the above correlations according to Cohen’s criteria, most “significances” are with effect
sizes ranging from “medium” to “large.” In this sense, the assumed “independent” relations
among dimensions may become questionable. On the other hand, if the effect sizes are
interpreted by r 2 , all of the significant correlations reported are at most with “medium”
effect size. This may lend more supports to the assumption of the MD framework.

Suggestion 2: More Attention to the AR Framework. Future research could pay more
attentions to the AR framework for at least two reasons. First, as discussed previously,
the AR framework addresses the limitations of both the UD and MD frameworks. More
importantly, this framework focuses more on how students draw on argumentative re-
sources to reason scientific claims rather than whether their VNOS are naı̈ve or informed.
This seems to share many similarities with the “epistemological resources” perspective
(see Hammer & Elby, 2002; Louca et al., 2004; Rosenberg, Hammer, & Phelan, 2006)
recently advocated in the research of personal epistemology. As Elby and Hammer (2001)
suggest “research should focus less on ranking the overall sophistication of students’ epis-
temologies, and more on identifying productive epistemological resources that students can
build upon . . . to become better learners” (p. 565). Second, this framework seems to help
explain several findings reported by studies guided by the other two frameworks. As de-
scribed previously, many UD researchers argued that some students seemed to hold mixed
VNOS because they reported empiricist orientation toward some questionnaire items but
constructivist orientation toward others. Some MD researchers have also reported similar
findings. Furthermore, inconsistencies between students’ responses to contextualized and
decontextualized items have been gradually recognized. From the AR perspective, those
questionnaire items or dimensions may project different contexts for different students. The
students may draw on varied argumentative resources dependent on the contexts that were
meaningful to themselves at that time (see Elby & Hammer, 2001). Relevant responses
to NOS questions, regardless of empiricist or constructivist, would thus be produced. In
light of the AR framework, the failure of several intervention studies may be explained in
two ways. From the GOP perspective, students may have attained a GOP though they did
not express the preferred VNOS after the intervention. They might need to be guided to
translate their grasp into an explicit and declarative form. From the IR perspective, stu-
dents’ inability to develop informed VNOS may be due to the insufficient time for their
appropriation of a new language to support their claims of NOS.
A suggestion for concerning the AR framework, however, does not indicate the abandon-
ment of the dimensional frameworks (UD and MD) in future research. As noted previously,
Science Education
982 DENG ET AL.

each framework has its own strength and limitation. We propose that researchers not only
flexibly utilize these frameworks according to their research practice such as the research
focus (e.g., professed vs. enacted VNOS, or both) and practical limitations (e.g., sample size
and research period). Furthermore, researchers are advised to interpret their findings based
on different frameworks, which may allow for a further examination of the frameworks
themselves.

Suggestion 3: A Refinement of the “Sophistication” Criteria. Future studies could

focus on studying how to determine the sophistication of VNOS through students’ ar-
gumentation of scientific claims rather than their professed statements about NOS. As
seen above, most UD and MD researchers are inclined to regard constructivist-oriented
views as sophisticated VNOS. They therefore judge the effectiveness of NOS teaching
interventions by the degree to which students express constructivist views. However, the
nine AR studies examine the sophistication of VNOS through students’ argumentation
performance. As discussed in the Introduction section, this disagreement has also been
recognized among science educators. Those who advocate constructivist as sophisticated
epistemology seem to presume that students with declarative knowledge of NOS can also
argue well for claims of scientific knowledge. However, Ford (2008b) argues that this pre-
sumption may be problematic. Specifically, students’ critical argumentation of scientific
claims typically “requires inference or some translation from this (declarative) knowledge
to action” (p. 173). That is, it is not necessary that students will react appropriately to
scientific claims even though they can provide constructivist-oriented responses to survey
or interview questions. Furthermore, it is argued that the goal of teaching students NOS is
to develop students’ abilities to critically evaluate and make decisions regarding scientific
claims (e.g., Smith & Scharmann, 1999; Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons, & Howes, 2005). This
goal coincides with the suggestion that “sophisticated” VNOS should be interpreted by the
degree to which students appropriately argue scientific claims.

Methodological Implications
Suggestion 4: An Emphasis on the Qualitative Methods. Future research could place
more emphasis on qualitative methods for both data collection and analysis. More than
half of the reviewed studies employed open form instruments and content analysis. How-
ever, while many studies focused more on explicating VNOS qualitatively, they are still
quantitative in nature. On the basis of the assumption of the MD framework, many re-
searchers may treat the content of students’ discourse as indicators of what students’ “real”
VNOS is. Students’ responses are often categorized according to preexisting categories
(e.g., naı̈ve, transitional, and informed) and the frequencies are computed statistically (e.g.,
Khishfe, 2008). Some researchers have also assessed the effects of curricular interventions
on changing students’ VNOS by examining the differences in frequency distributions and
tested its significance statistically. These studies treat students’ discourse as neutral rep-
resentation of VNOS. They seldom report process data of how VNOS are enacted during
the interventions. Availability and analysis of these process data (e.g., classroom discourse,
student-generated artifacts and learning behaviors) allow researchers to investigate how
VNOS may vary across different learning contexts (e.g., Elby & Hammer, 2001). This
will in turn facilitate the reexamination of the assumption of the MD framework. Further-
more, a careful collection and analysis of these data may enrich understandings of the
“in-depth mechanism” (Lederman, 2007, p. 869) that contribute to changes in students’
VNOS. Some qualitative methods such as conversation analysis (e.g., ten Have, 1999) and
Science Education
 STUDENTS’ VIEWS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 983

discourse analysis (e.g., Gee, 2005) allow researchers to address these issues. For example,
conversation analysis can be employed to examine how the students and the researcher
co-construct meanings of NOS during interviews and how students (with their teacher)
discuss about scientific claims in the classroom. Discourse analysis enables researchers
to explore how students use language to enact their socially recognizable identity (Gee,
2005) and to argue scientific claims (Gilbert & Mulkay, 1984). To be clear, we are not
suggesting discourse/conversation analysis completely substitute for the content analysis
method, which was popular among UD and MD researchers. Similarly, the uses of ana-
lytic methods depend mostly on the research focus (e.g., professed vs. enacted VNOS) in
situation.

Pedagogical Implications
Suggestion 5: An Attention to the Epistemic and Social Aspects of Inquiry. Future
research could pay more attention to the epistemic-social aspects of inquiry when preparing
curricular interventions for changing students’ VNOS. As found in this review, all the “suc-
cessful” intervention studies generally involve learning activities such as inquiry, discussion,
reflection, and/or argumentation. As discussed in the Introduction, inquiry has been tradi-
tionally interpreted as involving cyclical science activities such as forming hypotheses, col-
lecting and analyzing data, and drawing conclusions (NRC, 1996). However, such an inter-
pretation addresses only the cognitive processes but overlooks both the epistemic and social
aspects of inquiry (Grandy & Duschl, 2007). This may help to interpret the failure of most
intervention studies involving merely inquiry of this traditional type. As seen in Appendix B,
inquiry can contribute to the changes in students’ VNOS, especially when used together with
discussion, reflection, and/or argumentation activities. According to Grandy and Duschl’s
interpretation, the discussion, reflection, and argumentation activities are regarded as epis-
temic and social subactivities of inquiry. Thus, it can be concluded that inquiry with both
epistemic and social emphasis can facilitate the changes in students’ VNOS. Below, we also
attempt to interpret the role of these three epistemic and social activities (e.g., discussion, re-
flection, and argumentation) in changing students’ VNOS based on the aforementioned three
frameworks.
As the literature reviewed shows, three types of discussion activities have been in-
volved. They are general discussion, content-related discussion (CRD) on NOS, and the
content-independent discussion (CID) on NOS. The general discussion refers to students’
discussions that do not directly address NOS issues in the classroom. The CRD typi-
cally requires students to discuss the NOS aspects based on their learning content. Unlike
CRD, the CID separates students’ discussion on NOS from the science content taught.
Compared to the general discussion activities, both CRD and CID provide more oppor-
tunities for students to learn about science rather than to learn science content. From
the dimensional framework, both CRD and CID in nature can be seen as metacognitive
activities (Flavell, 1979) that enable students to ponder about the relationships between
the prior and the new conceptions of NOS. Students are usually expected to assimilate
or accommodate their existing conceptions through these discussion activities. From the
AR perspective, both CRD and CID may activate more effective uses of argumentative
resources.
Reflection activities refer to “active, persistent, and careful consideration” (Dewey,
1933, p. 9) of NOS aspects. They have been conducted in two formats, namely oral
and writing. Both formats allow an individual to independently rethink NOS aspects af-
ter class. From the dimensional framework, these activities enable students to gain ample
Science Education
984 DENG ET AL.

metacognitive experiences that may facilitate the process of conceptual change (Posner
et al., 1982). From the AR perspective, reflective activities allow students to critically reex-
amine the process of employing argumentative resources to construct and justify scientific
claims.
Argumentation activities involve making and justifying claims and conclusions (Driver,
Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Sampson & Clark, 2009; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). As seen
in the studies reviewed, they have been often conducted within a social group. Similar
to the discussion, argumentation activities make an individual’s VNOS exposed to other
group members. To the UD and MD researchers, such exposure may then help to achieve
“cognitive dissonance” (e.g., Piaget, 1929) or conceptual change (e.g., Bricker & Bell,
2008) regarding NOS.
From the AR perspective, the discursive argumentation activities allow students to so-
cially construct and justify scientific claims. Various argumentative resources are assumed
to be activated and appropriated during these activities. This then leads to critical argumen-
tation within the social group. The above three activities are advocated for NOS instruction
to facilitate changes of students’ VNOS.
In conclusion, the investigation of VNOS has come to a time where we can employ a more
contextualized framework to reexamine many claims made in previous studies. This would
help to develop more refined understanding of students’ VNOS and thus help educators
to design or co-construct with students the learning environments for the development of
VNOS.

APPENDIX A: SUMMARIES OF STUDIES ON STUDENTS’ VIEWS

OF NOS

Part 1: Unidimension Framework

Data
Data Analysis
Study Participants Source Method
Bell and Linn (2000) 172 U.S. middle school students OEQ SA and CA
Cavallo et al. (2003) 291 U.S. college students LS SA
Özdem et al. (2010) 946 Turkish sixth, seventh, eighth graders LS SA
Songer and Linn 153 U.S. Grade 8 students OEQ, Int SA, CA
(1991)
Tsai (1998a) 20 Taiwanese Grade 8 students LS, Int CA
Tsai (1998b) 48 Taiwanese Grade 8 students LS SA
Tsai (1999a) 48 Taiwanese Grade 8 students LS, Int SA, CA
Tsai (1999b) 25 Taiwanese Grade 8 students LS, Int, SA, CA
Tsai (1999c) 101 Taiwanese female Grade 10 students LS, Int, SA, CA
Tsai (2000a) 1176 Taiwanese Grade 10 students LS SA
Tsai (2000b) 101 Taiwanese female Grade 10 students LS SA
Note: CA: content analysis; LS: Likert scale; Int: interview; OEQ: open-ended questionnaire;
SA: statistical analysis.

Science Education
 STUDENTS’ VIEWS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 985

Part 2: Multidimension Framework

Data Data
Study Participants Source Analysis
Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman 166 U.S. undergraduate OEQ, Int CA
(2000b) students
Afonso and Gilbert (2010) 45 Portuguese university Int SA and
students CA
Akerson and Abd-El-Khalick 23 U.S. Grade 4 students OEQ, Int CA
(2005)
Akerson and Donnelly (2010) 18 U.S. K-2 students OEQ, Int CA
Akerson and Volrich (2006) 24 U.S. Grade 1 students OEQ, Int CA
Bell et al. (2003) 10 U.S. Grade 10–11 students OEQ, Int CA
Bezzi (1999) Five Italian freshmen RGT SA and
CA
Blanco and Niaz (1997) 89 freshmen from Venezuela OEQ CA
Bradford, Rubba, and 260 U.S. college students MCQ SA
Harkness (1995)
Brickhouse, Dagher, Letts, 340 U.S. college students Int CA
and Shipman (2000)
Brickhouse, Dagher, 20 out of 340 U.S. college Int, essay CA
Shipman, and Letts (2002) students
Chai et al. (2010) 445 undergraduate students LS SA
from China
Conley et al. (2004) 187 U.S. Grade 5 students LS SA
Constantinou et al. (2010) 315 Cyprian students aged OEQ, MCQ SA and
11–15 CA
Dagher and BouJaoude 62 U.S. college students OEQ, Int CA
(1997)
Dagher and BouJaoude 15 U.S. college students OEQ, Int CA
(2005)
Dagher et al. (2004) Nine U.S. college students OEQ, Int CA
Dhingra (2003) 63 U.S. precollege students OEQ, Int, CA
essay
Dogan and Abd-El-Khalick 2020 Grade 10 students from MCQ with SA and
(2008) Turkey SGR CA
Galili and Hazan (2001) 234 Israeli Grade 10 students OEQ, MCQ SA and
CA
Griffiths and Barman (1995) 96 students from Canada, Int CA
Australia, and United States
Griffiths and Barry (1993) 32 Canadian students aged Int CA
17–20
Hammer (1994) Six U.S. freshman students Int CA
Huang et al. (2005) 6167 Grade 5 and 6 students LS SA
from Taiwan
Ibáñez-Orcajo and 49 Spanish students aged 15 OEQ SA and
Martı́nez-Aznar (2007) CA
Ibrahim et al. (2009) 179 university students from MCQ, OEQ SA and
South Africa CA
Irwin (2000) 50 British students aged 14 Int SA and
CA
(Continued)

Science Education
986 DENG ET AL.

Continued
Data Data
Study Participants Source Analysis
Kalman (2010) Eight Canadian university Essay CA
students
Kang et al. (2005) 1702 Korean 6th, 8th, and MCQ with SA
10th graders SGR
Karabenick and Moosa (2005) 231 Omani and 151 U.S. LS SA
university students
Khishfe (2008) 18 U.S. Grade 7 students OEQ, Int SA and
CA
Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick 62 U.S. Grade 6 students OEQ, Int CA
(2002)
Khishfe and Lederman (2006) 42 U.S. Grade 9 students OEQ, Int CA
Khishfe and Lederman (2007) 89 Grade 9 and 40 Grade OEQ, Int CA
10–11 U.S. students
Kim and Irving (2010) 33 U.S. Grade 10 students OEQ, Int, SA and
CM CA
Kim and McKinney (2007) 31 U.S. Grade 7 students OEQ, essay CA
Kurdziel and Libarkin (2002) 224 U.S. college students LS, OEQ, CA
Int
Larochelle and Dêsautels 25 Canadian students aged Int CA
(1991) 15–18
Leach (1999) 495 British students aged 9, Int SA and
12, and 16 CA
Leach et al. (1997) 60 British students aged 9,12, Int SA and
and 16 CA
Leach et al. (2003) 70 British high school Int CA
students
Leach et al. (2000) 731 European students aged OEQ SA and
16–20 CA
Liang et al. (2010) 315 Taiwanese LS SA
undergraduates
Lin and Tsai (2008) 486 Taiwanese high school LS SA
students
Lin et al. (2004) 620 Taiwanese Grade 8 LS, Int SA and
students CA
Liu and Lederman (2002) 19 Grade 7 gifted students OEQ, Int CA
from Taiwan
Liu and Tsai (2008) 220 Taiwanese freshmen LS, Int SA and
CA
Martin-Hansen (2008) 20 U.S. incoming freshmen MCQ, Int, SA and
essay CA
Meichtry (1992) 1607 U.S. Grade 6–8 students LS SA
Meyling (1997) 737 German Grade 10–13 OEQ, Int CA
students
Miller et al. (2010) 231 U.S. undergraduates LS, OEQ SA and
CA
Moss et al. (2001) Five U.S. precollege students Int CA
Parker et al. (2008) 17 U.S. college students OEQ, Int CA
(Continued)

Science Education
 STUDENTS’ VIEWS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 987

Continued
Data Data
Study Participants Source Analysis
Peters and Kitsantas (2010) 162 U.S. Grade 8 students OEQ, Int SA and
CA
Rannikmäe, Rannikmäe, and 58 college nonscience Essay CA
Holbrook (2006) Estonia students
Roth and Roychoudhury 41 Grade 10–11 students OEQ, essay, CA
(1993) from Canada Int
Roth and Roychoudhury 41 Grade 10–11 students OEQ, essay, CA
(1994) from Canada Int
Ryan and Aikenhead (1992) Over 2000 Grade 11–12 MCQ CA
students from the United
States
Ryder and Leach (1999) 11 British college science Int CA
students
Ryder and Leach (2000) 731 European students aged OEQ, Int CA
16–20
Ryder et al. (1999) 11 British college science Int CA
students
Sadler et al. (2004) 84 U.S. students aged 14–17 OEQ, Int CA
Şahin and Köksal (2010) 85 Turkish Grade 9 students OEQ CA
Samarapungavan, Westby, 78 students from high school Int SA and
and Bodner (2006) to graduate CA
Sandoval and Morrison (2003) Eight U.S. high school Int CA
students
Shipman, Brickhouse, 19 out of 340 U.S. college Int, essay CA
Dagher, and Letts (2002) students
Smith et al. (2000) 58 U.S. Grade 6 students Int CA
Smith and Wenk (2006) 35 U.S. freshmen Int SA and
CA
Solomon, Duveen, Scott, and 94 British students from MCQ, Int CA
McCarthy (1992) Grades 7, 8, and 9
Solomon et al. (1994) 94 British students from MCQ, Int CA
Grades 7, 8, and 9
Solomon et al. (1996) 1010 British students from MCQ with SA and
Grades 7, 9, and 12 SGR, Int CA
Stathopoulou and Vosniadou 394, 394, and 98 Greek LS SA
(2007) undergraduates
Sutherland and Dennick 72 Cree and 36 LS, OEQ, SA and
(2002) Euro-Canadian Grade 7 Int CA
students
Tabak and Weinstock (2005) 243 Israeli students from MCQ with SA
Grades 6, 7, 8, and 9 SGR
Tamir (1994) 1,100 Grade 9 and 940 Grade LS SA
12 Israeli students
Tao (2002) 34 Grade 7 students from MCQ, Int CA
Hong Kong
Tao (2003) 36 Grade 7 students from MCQ, Int CA
Hong Kong
(Continued)

Science Education
988 DENG ET AL.

Continued
Data Data
Study Participants Source Analysis
Thoermer and Sodian (2002) 18 freshmen and 21 Int SA and
graduates from CA
Germany
Tsai (2006) 428 Taiwanese high LS SA
school students
Tsai and Liu (2005) 613 Taiwanese high LS, Int SA and
school students CA
Vhurumuku et al. (2006) 72 high school students OEQ, Int CA
from Zimbabwe
Walker and Zeidler (2007) 36 U.S. Grade 9–12 OEQ, Int CA
science students
Wen et al. (2010) 621 Taiwanese high OEQ CA
school students
Yerrick (2000) Five U.S. high school Int CA
students
Zeidler et al. (2002) 147 Grade 9–12 and 101 OEQ, OS, SA and
college U.S. students Int, CA
Notes: CA: content analysis; CM: concept map; LS: Likert scale; Int: interview; MCQ:
multiple-choice questionnaire; Ob: observation; OEQ: open-ended questionnaire; OS: or-
dinal scale; RGT: repertory grid technique; SA: statistical analysis; SGR: self-generated
response.

Part 3: Argumentative Resource Framework

Study Participants Data Source Data Analysis

Ford (2008b) 20 U.S. Grade 6 students Ob DA
Lucas and Roth (1996) Two U.S. high school students Int, essay DA
Rosebery et al. (1992) 12 Grade 7–8 and 4 high Int DA and SA
school students from Haiti
Roth and Alexander Two U.S. high school students Int, essay DA
(1997)
Roth and Lucas 23 U.S. high school students Int, essay DA
(1997)
Sandoval (2003) 19 U.S. high school students Ob, artifacts DA and SA
Sandoval and Millwood 87 U.S. high school students Ob, artifacts DA and SA
(2005)
Sandoval and Reiser 69 U.S. high school students Ob, artifacts DA and CA
(2004)
van Eijck et al. (2009) 13 Canadian preuniversity Ob, Int DA and CA
students
Notes: CA: content analysis; DA: discourse analysis; Int: interview; Ob: observation; SA:
statistical analysis.

Science Education
 STUDENTS’ VIEWS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 989

APPENDIX B: INTERVENTION STUDIES ON CHANGING STUDENTS’ VNOS

Authors and Learning

Framework Approach Design Activities Duration Effects
Bell and Linn Im PT Inq, Arg, Ref 6 weeks +
(2000) (UD)
∗
Tsai (1999c) (UD) Ex QE, Inq, GD, HOS 8 months
PPT
Abd-El-Khalick Im PPT HOS 10 weeks 0
and Lederman
(2000b) (MD)
Akerson and Im PT Inq 1 year 0
Abd-El-Khalick
(2005) (MD)
Akerson and Ex PPT Inq, CRD, Ref 6 weeks +
Donnelly (2010)
(MD)
Akerson and Ex PPT Inq, CRD 13 weeks +
Volrich (2006)
(MD)
Bell et al. (2003) Im PPT Inq 8 weeks 0
(MD)
Bezzi (1999) (MD) Im PPT Lec One 0
semester
Bradford et al. Im PPT Lec One 0
(1995) (MD) semester
Brickhouse et al. Ex PPT Inq, CRD 4 months +
(2000) (MD)
∗
Conley et al. Im PPT Inq, GD 9 weeks
(2004) (MD)
∗
Galili and Hazan Ex PT, CG HOS, CRD 1 year
(2001) (MD)
∗
Ibáñez-Orcajo and Im PT, DPT, Inq, GD 7–8 weeks
Martı́nez-Aznar CG
(2007) (MD)
Irwin (2000) (MD) Im PT, CG Inq, HOS, GD Eight +
periods
Kalman (2010) Ex PPT HOS, CRD One +
(MD) semester
∗
Khishfe (2008) Ex PPT Inq, CRD, Ref 3 months
(MD)
Khishfe and Im vs. Ex QE, Im: Inq; Ex: Inq 10 weeks Im: 0 Ex:+
Abd-El-Khalick PPT and CRD
(2002) (MD)
Khishfe and Ex QE, Inq, CRD vs. 6 weeks +
Lederman PPT CID, Ref
(2006) (MD)
Khishfe and Ex QE, Inq, CRD vs. 6 weeks +
Lederman PPT CID, Ref
(2007) (MD)
(Continued)

Science Education
990 DENG ET AL.

Continued
Authors and Learning
Framework Approach Design Activities Duration Effects
∗
Kim and Irving Ex QE, Inq, HOS, Ref Seven
(2010) (MD) PPT, activities
DPT
Kim and McKinney Ex PT Inq, CRD, Ref 4 days +
(2007) (MD)
Kurdziel and Im vs. Ex QE, Im: lecture; Ex: One Im: 0 Ex:+
Libarkin (2002) PPT Inq and semester
(MD) CRD
Leach et al. (2003) Ex PPT HOS, CRD 3 periods 0
(MD)
Liu and Lederman Ex PPT Inq, CRD 1 week 0
(2002) (MD)
∗
Martin-Hansen Ex PPT HOS, CRD, One
(2008) (MD) Ref semester
Meichtry (1992) Im QE, Inq, HOS 26 weeks 0
(MD) PPT
Meyling (1997) Ex PPT Inq, CID, Ref 2 years +
(MD)
∗
Miller et al. (2010) Ex PPT, QE Inq, CRD One
(MD) semester
Moss et al. (2001) Im PPT Inq 9 months 0
(MD)
Peters and Im vs. Ex QE, Im: Inq; Ex: 2 years Im: 0 Ex:∗
Kitsantas (2010) PPT Inq, CRD,
(MD) Ref
Rannikmäe et al. Im PT Lec 4 months 0
(2006) (MD)
Ryder and Leach Im PPT Inq, GD 5–8 months +
(1999) (MD)
Ryder et al. (1999) Im PPT Inq, GD 5–8 months +
(MD)
Sandoval and Im PPT Inq 4 weeks 0
Morrison (2003)
(MD)
Shipman et al. Ex PPT Inq, GD, Ref One +
(2002) (MD) semester
∗
Smith et al. (2000) Im QE Inq, GD, Arg 6 years
(MD)
Solomon et al. Im PPT Inq, HOS, GD 18 months +
(1992) (MD)
Solomon et al. Im PPT Inq, HOS, GD 18 months +
(1994) (MD)
Tao (2003) (MD) Im PPT Inq, HOS Five periods 0
Walker and Zeidler Ex PT Inq, CRD, Arg Seven +
(2007) (MD) periods
Yerrick (2000) Im PPT Inq, GD, Arg 20 weeks +
(MD)
(Continued)

Science Education
 STUDENTS’ VIEWS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 991

Continued
Authors and Learning
Framework Approach Design Activities Duration Effects
Ford (2008b) (AR) Im CS Inq, GD, Arg 2 weeks +
Lucas and Roth Ex CS Inq, CID, Ref 15 months +
(1996) (AR)
∗
Rosebery et al. Im PPT Inq, GD 2 semesters
(1992) (AR)
Roth and Lucas Ex PPT, CS Inq, CID, Ref 15 months +
(1997) (AR)
Sandoval (2003) Im CS Inq, Arg, Ref 4 weeks +
(AR)
Sandoval and Im CS Inq, Arg 4 weeks +
Millwood (2005)
(AR)
Sandoval and Im CS Inq, Arg, Ref 4 weeks +
Reiser (2004)
(AR)
Notes: Arg: argumentation; CID: content-independent discussion on NOS; CRD: content-
related discussion on NOS; CG: control group; CS: case study; DPT: delayed posttest; Ex:
explicit approach GD: general discussion; HOS: history of science; Im: implicit approach;
Inq: inquiry; Lec: lecture; PT: posttest only; PPT: pre- and posttest; QE: quasiexperimental;
Ref: reflection;
∗
Statistically significant change in certain or all dimensions of VNOS.
+
Recognizable change in certain or all dimensions of VNOS (without conducting significance
tests).
0
Little or no change in VNOS.

REFERENCES
Abd-El-Khalick, F., BaoJaoude, S., Duschl, R. A., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al.
(2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397 – 419.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice:
Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417 – 436.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000a). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science:
A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665 – 701.
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), 1057 – 1095.
Afonso, A. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2010). Pseudo-science: A meaningful context for assessing nature of science.
International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 329 – 348.
Aikenhead, G., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: “Views on science–technology–
society” (VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477 – 491.
Aikenhead, G., Ryan, A., & Desautels, J. (1989). Monitoring student views on science–technology–society issues:
The development of multiple choice items. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association
for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
Ackerson, V., & Donnelly, L. A. (2010). Teaching nature of science to K-2 students: What understanding can they
attain? International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 97 – 124.
Ackerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). “How should I know what scientists do—I am just a kid”: Fourth
grade students’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 17(1), 1 – 11.
Akerson, V. L., Buzzelli, C. A., & Donnelly, L. A. (2008). Early childhood teachers’ views of nature of science:
The influence of intellectual levels, cultural values, and explicit reflective teaching. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 45(6), 748 – 770.

Science Education
992 DENG ET AL.

Akerson, V. L., & Volrich, M. L. (2006). Teaching nature of science explicitly in a first-grade internship setting.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 377 – 394.
Allchin, D. (2010). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Paper presented at the 8th International
Conference on History of Science in Science Education, Maresias, Brazil.
Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39 – 55.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061
report. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the Web
with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797 – 817.
Bell, R. L. (2006). Perusing Pandora’s box: Exploring the what, when, and how of nature of science instruction.
In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 427 – 446). Dordrecht:
The Netherlands: Springer.
Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship
program on high school students’ understanding of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487 – 509.
Bezzi, A. (1997). What is this thing called geoscience? Epistemological dimensions elicited with repertory grid
and their implications for scientific literacy. Science Education, 83, 675 – 700.
Blanco, R., & Niaz, M. (1997). Epistemological beliefs of students and teachers about the nature of science: From
“Baconian inductive ascent” to the “irrelevance” of scientific laws. Instructional Science, 25, 203 – 231.
Bradford, C. S., Rubba, P. A., & Harkness, W. L. (1995). Views about science–technology–society interactions
held by college students in general education physics and STS courses. Science Education, 79(4), 355 –
373.
Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning
sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92, 473 – 498.
Brickhouse, N. W., Dagher, Z. R., Letts, W. J., IV, & Shipman, H. L. (2000). Diversity of students’ views about
evidence, theory, and the interface between science and religion in an astronomy course. Journal of the Research
in Science Teaching, 37(4), 340 – 362.
Brickhouse, N. W., Dagher, Z. R., Shipman, H. L., & Letts, W. J., IV. (2002). Evidence and warrants for belief in
a college astronomy course. Science & Education, 11, 573 – 588.
Brickhouse, N. W., Stanley, W. B., & Whitson, J. A. (1993). Practical reasoning and science education: Implications
for theory and practice. Science & Education, 2(4), 363 – 375.
Cavallo, A. M. L., Rozman, M., Blickenstaff, J., & Walker, N. (2003). Learning, reasoning, motivation, and
epistemological beliefs. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33, 18 – 23.
Central Association for Science and Mathematics Teachers (1907). A consideration of the principles that should
determine the courses in biology in secondary schools. School Science and Mathematics, 7, 241 – 247.
Centre of Unified Science Education (1974). The dimensions of scientific literacy. Columbus: Ohio State Univer-
sity.
Chai, C. C., Deng, F., Qian, Y. Y., & Wong, B. (2010). South China education major’s epistemological beliefs and
their conceptions of nature of science. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(1), 111 – 125.
Chen, S. (2006). Development of an instrument to assess views on nature of science and attitudes toward teaching
science. Science Education, 90, 803 – 819.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework
for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175 – 218.
Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: considerations for effective
nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 15, 463 – 494.
Clough, M. P. (2007). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students: Questions rather
than tenets. The Pantaneto Forum, 25, http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue25/front25.htm.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
Constantinou, C., Hadjilouca, R., & Papadouris, N. (2010). Students’ epistemological awareness concerning the
distinction between science and technology. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 143 – 172.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundation of social research. London: Sage.
Crowther, D. T., Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2005). Understanding the true meaning of nature of science:
Teaching suggestions to help you highlight nature of science. Science and Children, 43(2), 50 – 52.
Dagher, Z. R., & BouJaoude, S. (1997). Scientific views and religious beliefs of college students: The case of
biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(5), 429 – 445.
Dagher, Z. R., & BouJaoude, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions of the nature of evolutionary theory. Science
Education, 89, 378 – 391.

Science Education
 STUDENTS’ VIEWS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 993

Dagher, Z. R., Brickhouse, N. W., Shipman, H. L., & Letts, W. J. (2004). How some college students represent
their understandings of the nature of scientific theories. International Journal of Science Education, 26(6),
735 – 755.
Danziger, K. (1997). Naming the mind: How psychology found its language. London: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Lexington, MA: Health and Company.
Dhingra, K. (2003). Thinking about television science: How students understand the nature of science from
different program genres. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 234 – 256.
Dogan, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish grade 10 students’ and science teachers’ conceptions of nature
of science: A national study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083 – 1112.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s image of science. Buckingham, England:
Open University Press.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms.
Science Education, 84, 287 – 312.
Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. E. (2007). Teaching scientific inquiry: recommendations for research and implemen-
tation. Rotterdam: The Netherlands: SensePublishers.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education.
Studies in Science Education, 38, 39 – 72.
Edley, N. (2001). Analysing masculinity: Interpretative repertoires, ideological dilemmas and subject positions.
In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. Yate (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 189 – 229). London:
Sage.
Edwards, D. (1993). But what do children really think?: Discourse analysis and conceptual content in children’s
talk. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3 – 4), 207 – 225.
Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85,
554 – 567.
Elyon, B. S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four research perspectives in
science education. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 251 – 301.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry.
American Psychologist, 34, 906 – 911.
Ford, M. (2008a). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education,
92, 404 – 423.
Ford, M. (2008b). “Grasp of practice” as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding.
Science & Education, 17, 147 – 177.
Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2001). The effect of a history-based course in optics on students’ views about science.
Science & Education, 10, 7 – 32.
Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Gilbert, G. N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Gil-Pérez, D., Guisasola, J., Moreno, A., Cachapuz, A., Pessoa-de-Carvalho, A., Martı́nez-Terrades, J., et al.
(2002). Defending constructivism in science education. Science & Education, 11, 557 – 571.
Grandy, R. E., & Duschl, R. A. (2007). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: analysis
of a conference. Science & Education, 16(2), 141 – 166.
Griffiths, A. K., & Barman, C. R. (1995). High school students’ views about the nature of science: Results from
three countries. School Science and Mathematics, 95(5), 248 – 255.
Griffiths, A. K., & Barry, M. (1993). High school students’ views about the nature of science. School Science and
Mathematics, 93(1), 35 – 37.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12(2) 151 – 183.
Hammer, D. M., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.),
Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169 – 190). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Hipkins, R., Barker, M., & Bolstad, R. (2005). Teaching the “nature of science”: Modest adaptions or radical
reconceptions? International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 243 – 254.
Hofer, B. (2008). Personal epistemology and culture. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs:
Epistemological studies across diverse culture (pp. 3 – 22). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and
knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88 – 140.
Hsu, P.-L., & Roth, W.-M. (2009). An analysis of teacher discourse that introduces real science activities to high
school students. Research in Science Education, 39(4), 553 – 574.

Science Education
994 DENG ET AL.

Hsu, P.-L., & Roth, W.-M. (2010). Understanding beliefs, identity, conceptions, and motivation from a discursive
psychology perspective. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of
science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer-Verlag.
Huang, C.-M., Tsai, C.-C., & Chang, C.-Y. (2005). An investigation of Taiwanese early adolescents’ views about
the nature of science. Adolescence, 40(159), 645 – 654.
Ibáñez-Orcajo, M. T., & Martı́nez-Aznar, M. M. (2007). Solving problems in genetics, Part III: Change in the
view of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(6), 747 – 769.
Ibrahim, B., Buffler, A., & Lubben, F. (2009). Profiles of freshman physics students’ views on the nature of
science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 248 – 264.
Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84,
5 – 26.
Kalman, C. (2010). Enabling students to develop a scientific mindset. Science & Education, 19, 147 – 163.
Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2005). Examining students’ views on the nature of science: results from
Korean 6th, 8th, and 10th graders. Science Education, 89, 314 – 334.
Karabenick, S. A., & Moosa, S. (2005). Culture and personal epistemology: U.S. and Middle Eastern students’
beliefs about scientific knowledge and knowing. Social Psychology of Education, 8, 375 – 393.
Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’
use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314 – 342.
Khishfe, R. (2008). The development of seventh graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 45(4), 470 – 496.
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.
Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus
nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395 – 418.
Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2007). Relationship between instructional context and views of nature of science.
International Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 939 – 961.
Kim, B.-S., & McKinney, M. (2007). Teaching the nature of science through the concept of living. Science Scope,
31(3), 20 – 25.
Kim, S. Y., & Irving, K. E. (2010). History of science as in instructional context: Student learning in genetics and
nature of science. Science & Education, 19(2), 187 – 215.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford
Press.
Klopfer, L. E. (1983). Research and the crisis in science education. Science Education, 67(3), 283 – 284.
Kurdziel, J. P., & Libarkin, J. C. (2002). Research methodologies in science education: students’ ideas about the
nature of science. Journal of Geoscience Education, 50(3), 322 – 329.
Larochelle, M., & Désautels, J. (1991). “Of course, it’s just obvious”: Adolescents’ ideas of scientific knowledge.
International Journal of science Education, 13(4), 373 – 389.
Leach, J. (1999). Students’ understanding of the co-ordination of theory and evidence in science. International
Journal of Science Education, 21(8) 789 – 806.
Leach, J., Driver, R., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1997). A study of progression in learning about “the nature of
science”: Issues of conceptualisation and methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 147 –
166.
Leach, J., Hind, A., & Ryder, J. (2003). Designing and evaluating short teaching interventions about the episte-
mology of science in high school classrooms. Science Education, 71, 117 – 134.
Leach, J., Millar, R., Ryder, J., & Sere, M.-G. (2000). Epistemological understanding in science learning: The
consistency of representations across contexts. Learning and Instruction, 10, 497 – 527.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331 – 359.
Lederman, N. G. (1996). The nature of science: instructional implication for a process more tentative than its
products. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St.
Louis, MO.
Lederman, N. G. (2004). Syntax of nature of science with inquiry and science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G.
Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 301 – 317). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
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. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science ques-
tionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497 – 521.

Science Education
 STUDENTS’ VIEWS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 995

Lederman, N. G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use
and sources of change. Science Education, 74(2), 225 – 239.
Lederman, N. G., Wade, P. D., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing the nature of science: What is the nature of our
assessments? Science & Education, 7, 595 – 615.
Lederman, N. G., & Zeidler, D. L. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really
influence teacher behavior? Science Education, 71(5), 721 – 734.
Lee, Y. J., & Roth, W.-M. (2004). Making a scientist: Discursive “doing” of identity and self-representation
during research interviews. Forum Qualitatize Sozial forschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(1),
http://qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-04/1-04leeroth-ehtm.
Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2005). SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation.
London: Erlbaum.
Lerman, S. (1989). Constructivism, mathematics, and mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
20, 211 – 223.
Liang, J.-C., Lee, M.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). The relations between scientific epistemological beliefs and
approaches to learning science among science-major undergraduates in Taiwan. The Asia-Pacific Education
Researcher, 19(1), 43 – 59.
Libarkin, J. C. (2001). Development of an assessment of student conception of the nature of science. Journal of
Geoscience Education, 49(5), 435 – 442.
Lin, C.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Exploring the structural relationships between high school students’ scientific
epistemological views and their utilization of information commitments towards online science information.
International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 2001 – 2022.
Lin, H.-S., Chiu, H.-L., & Chou, C.-Y. (2004). Student understanding of the nature of science and their problem-
solving strategies. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 101 – 112.
Liu, S.-Y., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). Taiwanese gifted students’ view of nature of science. School Science and
Mathematics, 102(3), 114 – 123.
Liu, S.-Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Differences in the scientific epistemological views of undergraduate students.
International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1055 – 1073.
Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological
framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 57 – 68.
Lucas, K. B., & Roth, W.-M. (1996). The nature of scientific knowledge and student learning: Two longitudinal
case studies. Research in Science Education, 26(1), 103 – 127.
Martin-Hansen, L. M. (2008). First-year college students’ conflict with religion and science. Science & Education,
17, 317 – 357.
Matthews, M. (1992). Old wine in new bottles: a problem with constructivist epistemology. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Cambridge, MA.
Matthews, M. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Matthews, M. (1997). James T. Robinson’s account of philosophy of science and science teaching: some lessons
for today from the 1960s. Science Education, 81, 295 – 315.
Matthews, M. (1998a). In defense of modest goals when teaching about the nature of science. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 35(2), 161 – 174.
Matthews, M. (1998b). The nature of science and science teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International
handbook of science education (pp. 981 – 999). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Matthews, M. (2002). Constructivism and science education: A future appraisal. Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 11(2), 121 – 134.
McComas, W. F. (1996). Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science.
School Science and Mathematics, 96(1), 10 – 16.
McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science &
Education, 17, 249 – 263.
McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science
education. Science & Education, 7, 511 – 532.
McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards
documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies
(pp. 41 – 52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
McDonald, C. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice
primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1137 – 1164.
Meichtry, Y. J. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the nature of science: Data from a case of curriculum
development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 389 – 407.
Meichtry, Y. J. (1993). The impact of science curricula on student views about the nature of science. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 429 – 443.

Science Education
996 DENG ET AL.

Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach.
New York: Routledge.
Meyling, H. (1997). How to change students’ conceptions of the epistemology of science. Science & Education,
6, 397 – 416.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College.
Miller, M. C. D., Montplaisir, L. M., Offerdahl, E. G., Cheng, F.-C., & Ketterling, G. L. (2010). Comparison of
views of the nature of science between natural science and nonscience majors. CBE-Life Sciences Education,
9, 45 – 54.
Moss, D. M., Brams, E. D., & Robb, J. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International
Journal of Science Education, 23, 771 – 790.
National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academic
Press.
National Science Teachers Association (1982). Science–technology–society: Science education for the 1980s (an
NSTA position statement). Washington, DC: Author.
Osborne, J. (1996). Beyond constructivism. Science Education, 80, 53 – 82.
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be
taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
40(7), 692 – 720.
Özdem, Y., Çavaş, P., Çavaş, B., Çakıroğlu, J., & Ertepınar, H. (2010). An investigation of elementary students’
scientific literacy levels. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 9(1), 6 – 19.
Parker, L. C., Krockover, G. H., Lasher-Trapp, S., & Eichinger, D. C. (2008). Ideas about the nature of science
held by undergraduate atmospheric science students. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(11),
1681 – 1688.
Peters, E. E., & Kitsantas, A. (2010). Self-regulation of student epistemic thinking in science: The role of
metacognitive prompts. Educational Psychology, 30(1), 27 – 52.
Piaget, J. (1928). Judgment and reasoning in the child (M. Worden Trans.). New York: Harcourt Brace.
Piaget, J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world (J. Tomlinson and A. Tomlinson, Trans.). New York:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science: Comparison of the beliefs of
scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77(3), 261 – 278.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of science conception:
Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(4), 211 – 227.
Potter, J. (2004). Discourse analysis. In M. Hardy & A. Bryman (Eds.), Handbook of data analysis. London: Sage.
Potter, J., Stringer, P., & Wetherell, M. (1984). Social texts and context: Literature and social psychology. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse analysis and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behavior.
London: Sage.
Rannikmäe, A., Rannikmäe, M., & Holbrook, J. (2006). The nature of science as viewed by non-science under-
graduate students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 2(10), 77 – 85.
Reis, G., & Roth, W.-M. (2007). Environmental education in action: A discursive approach to curriculum design.
Environmental Education Research, 13, 307 – 327.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Conant, F. R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: findings from language
minority classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences,2(1), 61 – 94.
Rosenberg, S., Hammer, D., & Phelan, J. (2006). Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discus-
sion of the rock cycle. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 261 – 292.
Roth, W.-M. (2008). The nature of scientific conceptions: A discursive psychological perspective. Educational
Research Review, 3, 30 – 50.
Roth, W.-M., & Alexander, T. (1997). The interaction of students’ scientific and religious discourse: Two case
studies. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 125 – 146.
Roth, W.-M., & Lucas, K. B. (1997). From “truth” to “invented reality”: A discourse analysis of high school
physics students’ talk about scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 145 – 179.
Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The nature of scientific knowledge, knowing and learning: the per-
spectives of four physics students. International Journal of Science Education, 15(1), 27 – 44.
Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Physics students’ epistemologies and views about knowing and
learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 5 – 30.
Rouse, J. (1996). Engaging science: How to understand its practices philosophically. New York: Cornell University
Press.

Science Education
 STUDENTS’ VIEWS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 997

Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the “nature of science” as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 32(3), 403 – 419.
Ruse, M. (1999). Mystery of mysteries: Is evolution a social constructivism? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. (1992). Students’ perceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education,
76(6), 559 – 580.
Ryder, J., & Leach, J. (1999). University science students’ experiences of investigative project work and their
images of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(9), 945 – 956.
Ryder, J., & Leach, J. (2000). Interpreting experimental data: The views of upper secondary school and university
science students. International Journal of Science Education, 22(10), 1069 – 1084.
Ryder, J., Leach, J., & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of science. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 36(2), 201 – 219.
Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in
response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387 – 409.
Şahin, C. T., & Köksal, M. S. (2010). How are the perceptions of high school students and teachers on NOS
as a knowledge type presented in schools in terms of “importance” and “interest”? International Journal of
Environmental & Science Education, 5(1), 105 – 126.
Samarapungavan, A., Westby, E. L., & Bodner, G. M. (2006). Contextual epistemic development in science: A
comparison of chemistry students and research chemists. Science Education, 90, 468 – 495.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education:
Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447 – 472.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation.
Science Education, 93, 448 – 484.
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5 – 51.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through
inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634 – 656.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific
explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23 – 55.
Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change after a
biological inquiry unit. Journal of the Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 369 – 392.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds
for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345 – 372.
Shipman, H. L. (2004). Inquiry learning in college classrooms. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific
inquiry and nature of science (pp. 357 – 387). Dordrecht: The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Shipman, H. L., Brickhouse, N. W., Dagher, Z. R., & Letts IV, W. J. (2002). Changes in student views of religion
and science in a college astronomy course. Science Education, 86, 526 – 547.
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. London:
Sage.
Smith, C. L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students’ epistemologies of
science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction,
18(3), 349 – 422.
Smith, C. L., & Wenk, L. (2006). Relations among three aspects of first-year college students’ epistemologies of
science. Journal of the Research in Science Teaching, 43(8), 747 – 785.
Smith, M. U., Lederman, N. G., Bell, R. L., McComas, W. F., & Clough, M. P. (1997). How great is the
disagreement about the nature of science: A response to Alters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
34(10), 1101 – 1103.
Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defing versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis
for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83, 493 – 509.
Solomon, J., Duveen, J., & Scott, L. (1994). Pupil’s images of scientific epistemology. International Journal of
Science Education, 16(3), 361 – 373.
Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scott, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science through history:
Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 409 – 421.
Solomon, J., Scott, L., & Duveen, J. (1996). Large-scale exploration of pupils’ understanding of the nature of
science. Science Education, 80(5), 493 – 508.
Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 761 – 784.
Stathopoulou, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2007). Exploring the relationship between physics-related epistemological
beliefs and physics understanding. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 255 – 281.

Science Education
998 DENG ET AL.

Staver, J. R. (1998). Constructivism: Sound theory for explicating the practice of science and science teaching.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 501 – 520.
Suchting, W. A. (1995). The nature of scientific thought. Science & Education, 4(1), 1 – 22.
Sutherland, D., & Dennick, R. (2002). Exploring culture, language and the perception of the nature of science.
International Journal of Science Education, 24(1), 1 – 25.
Tabak, I., & Weinstock, M. P. (2005). Knowledge is knowledge is knowledge? The relationship between personal
and scientific epistemology. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 5(3), 307 –
328.
Tamir, P. (1994). Israeli students’ conceptions of science and views about the scientific enterprise. Research in
science & Technological education, 12(2), 99 – 116.
Tao, P. K. (2002). A study of students’ focal awareness when studying science stories designed for fostering
understanding of the nature of science. Research in Science Education, 32, 97 – 120.
Tao, P. K. (2003). Eliciting and developing junior secondary students’ understanding of the nature of science
through a peer collaboration instruction in science stories. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2),
147 – 171.
ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage.
Thoermer, C., & Sodian, B. (2002). Science undergraduates’ and graduates’ epistemologies of science: The notion
of interpretive frameworks. New Ideas in Psychology, 20, 263 – 283.
Thompson, B. (2008). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications
(3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.
Tobin, K. (1993). The practice of constructivism in science and mathematics education. Washington DC: AAA
Press.
Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. (1997). Beliefs about the nature of science and the enacted science curriculum. Science
and Education, 6, 355 – 371.
Tsai, C.-C. (1998a). An analysis of scientific epistemological beliefs and learning orientations of Taiwanese eighth
graders. Science Education, 82, 473 – 489.
Tsai, C.-C. (1998b). An analysis of Taiwanese eighth graders’ science achievement, scientific epistemological
beliefs and cognitive structure outcomes after learning basic atomic theory. International Journal of Science
Education, 20(4), 413 – 425.
Tsai, C.-C. (1999a). Content analysis of Taiwanese 14 year olds’ information processing operations shown in cog-
nitive structures following physics instruction, with relation to science attainment and scientific epistemological
beliefs. Research in Science & Technological Education, 17(2), 125 – 148.
Tsai, C.-C. (1999b). “Laboratory exercises help me memorize the scientific truths”: A study of eighth graders’
scientific epistemological views and learning in laboratory activities. Science Education, 83, 654 – 674.
Tsai, C.-C. (1999c). The progression toward constructivist epistemological views of science: a case study of the
STS instruction of Taiwanese high school female students. International Journal of Science Education, 21(11),
1201 – 1222.
Tsai, C.-C. (2000a). Relationship between student scientific epistemological beliefs and perceptions of construc-
tivist learning environments. Educational Research, 42, 193 – 205.
Tsai, C.-C. (2000b). The effects of STS-oriented instruction on female tenth graders’ cognitive structure outcomes
and the role of student scientific epistemological beliefs. International Journal of Science Education, 22(10),
1099 – 1115.
Tsai, C.-C. (2006). Biological knowledge is more tentative than physics knowledge: Taiwan high school adoles-
cents’ views about the nature of biology and physics. Adolescence, 41(164), 691 – 703.
Tsai, C.-C., & Liang, J.-C. (2009). The development of science activities via on-line peer assessment: The role of
scientific epistemological views. Instructional Science, 37, 293 – 310.
Tsai, C.-C., & Liu, S.-Y. (2005). Developing a multi-dimensional instrument for assessing students’ epistemolog-
ical views toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1621 – 1638.
van Eijck, M., Hsu, P.-L., & Roth, W.-M. (2009). Translations of scientific practice to “students’ images of
science.” Science Education, 93, 611 – 634.
Vhurumuku, E., Holtman, L., Mikalsen, O., & Kolsto, S. D. (2006). An investigation of Zimbabwe high school
chemistry students’ laboratory work-based images of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 43(2), 127 – 149.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Washington, DC: Falmer
Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded
inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387 – 1410.

Science Education
 STUDENTS’ VIEWS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE 999

Wen, M. L., Kuo, P.-C., Tsai, C.-C., & Chang, C.-Y. (2010). Exploring high school students’ views regarding the
nature of scientific theory. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(1), 161 – 177.
Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1988). Discourse analysis and the identification of interpretive repertoires. In C. Antaki
(Ed.), Analyzing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 168 – 183). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wheeler-Toppen, J. L. (2005). Teaching NOS tenets: Is it time for a change? Paper presented at the Association
of Science Teacher Educators (ASTE) Conference, Colorado Springs, CO.
Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807 – 838.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework
for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357 – 377.
Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature
of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343 – 367.
Zeyer, A., & Roth, W.-M. (2009). A mirror of society: A discourse analytic study of 15- to 16-year-old Swiss
students’ talk about environment and environmental protection. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4,
961 – 998.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in
human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35 – 62.

Science Education