Helping students develop informed views of nature of science (NOS) has been and continues to be a central goal for kindergarten through Grade 12 (K–12) science education. Since the early 1960s, major efforts have been undertaken to enhance K–12 students and science teachers' NOS views. However, the crucial component of assessing learners' NOS views remains an issue in research on NOS. This article aims to (a) trace the development of a new open‐ended instrument, the Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire (VNOS), which in conjunction with individual interviews aims to provide meaningful assessments of learners' NOS views; (b) outline the NOS framework that underlies the development of the VNOS; (c) present evidence regarding the validity of the VNOS; (d) elucidate the use of the VNOS and associated interviews, and the range of NOS aspects that it aims to assess; and (e) discuss the usefulness of rich descriptive NOS profiles that the VNOS provides in research related to teaching and learning about NOS. The VNOS comes in response to some calls within the science education community to go back to developing standardized forced‐choice paper and pencil NOS assessment instruments designed for mass administrations to large samples. We believe that these calls ignore much of what was learned from research on teaching and learning about NOS over the past 30 years. The present state of this line of research necessitates a focus on individual classroom interventions aimed at enhancing learners' NOS views, rather than on mass assessments aimed at describing or evaluating students' beliefs. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 39: 497–521, 2002

The purpose of this study was to delineate the factors that mediate the translation of preservice teachers' conceptions of the nature of science (NOS) into instructional planning and classroom practice. Fourteen preservice secondary science teachers participated in the study. Prior to their student teaching, participants responded to an open‐ended questionnaire designed to assess their conceptions of the NOS. Analysis of the questionnaires was postponed until after the completion of student teaching to avoid biasing the collection and/or analysis of other data sources. Throughout student teaching, participants' daily lesson plans, classroom videotapes, and portfolios, and supervisors' weekly clinical observation notes were collated. These data were searched for explicit references to the NOS. Following student teaching, participants were individually interviewed to validate their responses to the open‐ended questionnaire and to identify the factors or constraints that mediate the translation of their conceptions of the NOS into their classroom teaching. Participants were found to possess adequate understandings of several important aspects of the NOS including the empirical and tentative nature of science, the distinction between observation and inference, and the role of subjectivity and creativity in science. Many claimed to have taught the NOS through science‐based activities. However, data analyses revealed that explicit references to the NOS were rare in their planning and instruction. Participants articulated several factors for this lack of attention to the NOS. These included viewing the NOS as less significant than other instructional outcomes, preoccupation with classroom management and routine chores, discomfort with their own understandings of the NOS, the lack of resources and experience for teaching the NOS, cooperating teachers' imposed restraints, and the lack of planning time. In addition to these volunteered constraints, the data revealed others related to an intricate interaction between participants' perspectives on the NOS, pedagogy, and instructional outcomes. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 82:417–436, 1998.

No abstract

ABSTRACT:The purpose of this investigation was to explicate the role of the nature of science in decision making on science and technology based issues and to delineate factors and reasoning associated with these types of decisions. Twenty-one volunteer participants purposively selected from the faculty of geographically diverse universities completed an open-ended questionnaire and follow-up interview designed to assess their decision making on science and technology based issues. Participants were subsequently placed in one of two groups based upon their divergent views of the nature of science as assessed by a second open-ended questionnaire and follow-up interview. Profiles of each group's decision making were then constructed, based on participants' previous responses to the decision making questionnaire and follow-up interviews. Finally, the two groups' decisions, decision influencing factors, and decision making strategies were compared. No differences were found between the decisions of the two groups, despite their disparate views of the nature of science. Participants in both groups based their decisions primarily on personal values, morals/ethics, and social concerns. While all participants considered scientific evidence in their decision making, most did not require absolute "proof," even though many participants held absolute conceptions of the nature of science. Overall, the nature of science did not figure prominently in either group's decisions. These findings contrast with basic assumptions of current science education reform efforts and call for a re-examination of the goals of nature of science instruction. Developing better decision making skills-even on science and technology based issues-may involve other factors, including more value-based instruction and attention to intellectual/moral development.

The purpose of this study was to explicate the impact of an 8-week science apprenticeship program on a group of high-ability secondary students' understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Ten volunteers (Grades 10-11) completed a modified version of the Views of Nature of Science, Form B both before and after their apprenticeship to assess their conceptions of key aspects of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Semistructured exit interviews provided an opportunity for students to describe the nature of their apprenticeship experiences and elaborate on their written questionnaire responses. Semistructured exit interviews were also conducted with the scientists who served as mentors for each of the science apprentices. For the most part, students held conceptions about the nature of science and scientific inquiry that were inconsistent with those described in current reforms. Participating science mentors held strong convictions that their apprentices had learned much about the scientific enterprise in the course of doing the science in their apprenticeship. Although most students did appear to gain knowledge about the processes of scientific inquiry, their conceptions about key aspects of the nature of science remained virtually unchanged. Epistemic demand and reflection appeared to be crucial components in the single case where a participant experienced substantial gains in her understandings of the nature of science and inquiry. ß