This article was downloaded by: [American University of Beirut]On: 19 April 2012, At: 04:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Transfer of Nature of ScienceUnderstandings into Similar Contexts:Promises and Possibilities of an ExplicitReflective ApproachRola Khishfe aa Department of Education, American University of Beirut, Beirut,Lebanon

Available online: 19 Apr 2012

To cite this article: Rola Khishfe (2012): Transfer of Nature of Science Understandings into SimilarContexts: Promises and Possibilities of an Explicit Reflective Approach, International Journal ofScience Education, DOI:10.1080/09500693.2012.672774

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.672774

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Transfer of Nature of Science

Understandings into Similar Contexts:

Promises and Possibilities of an

Explicit Reflective Approach

Rola Khishfe∗

Department of Education, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

The purpose of this study was to (a) investigate the effectiveness of explicit nature of science (NOS)

instruction in the context of controversial socioscientific issues and (b) explore whether the transfer

of acquired NOS understandings, which were explicitly taught in the context of one socioscientific

context, into other similar contexts (familiar and unfamiliar) was possible. Participants were 10th

grade students in two intact sections at one high school. The treatment involved teaching a six-

week unit about genetic engineering. For one group (non-NOS group), there was no explicit

instruction about NOS. For the other group (NOS group), explicit instruction about three NOS

aspects (subjective, empirical, and tentative) was dispersed across the genetic engineering unit. A

questionnaire including two open-ended scenarios, in conjunction with semi-structured

interviews, was used to assess the change in participants’ understandings of NOS and their ability

to transfer their acquired understandings into similar contexts. The first scenario involved a

familiar context about genetically modified food and the second one focused on an unfamiliar

context about water fluoridation. Results showed no improvement in NOS understandings of

participants in the non-NOS group in relation to the familiar and unfamiliar contexts. On the

other hand, there was a general improvement in the NOS understandings of participants in

the NOS group in relation to both the familiar and unfamiliar contexts. Implications about the

transfer of participants’ acquired NOS understandings on the basis of the distance between

the context of learning and that of application are highlighted and discussed in link with the

classroom learning environment.

Keywords: High school; Nature of science; Science Technology Society

International Journal of Science Education

2012, 1–26, iFirst Article

∗American University of Beirut, 11-0236, Beirut, Lebanon. Email: rk19@aub.edu.lb

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/12/000001–26

# 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.672774

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

Introduction

Most educators hope that students will show evidence of transfer in various situations:

from one context to another context within a course, from one course to another, from

one school year to the next, and from their school years to their work place (Bransford

& Schwartz, 1999). This issue has been described as a fundamental goal of education

(De Corte, 2003).

Many definitions exist for the transfer of knowledge and skills. It may refer to the

way in which individuals respond to new situations or transfer from one situation to

another similar situation. In this paper, transfer is considered in its most basic form

and that is the way in which students convey their newly acquired knowledge,

which has been learned in a particular context, into other similar contexts. The ration-

ale for adopting this form of transfer will be explained at a later stage in the paper.

Generally speaking, the notion of transfer has been very controversial. There have

been debates about what types of transfers may exist (e.g. Ausubel & Robinson, 1969;

Perkins & Salomon, 1989) and whether transfer occurs (e.g. Alexander & Judy, 1988;

Perkins & Salomon, 1989). The literature has many examples that manifest the failure

of transfer but also others that display its success. As such, one can conceptualize the

issue about the transfer of knowledge as projecting along two different lines.

At one end, supporters of the situated learning theory claim that the transfer of

knowledge and/or skills to different contexts is not achievable; such knowledge/

skills are only confined to the context in which they were learned (Brown, Collins,

& Duguid, 1989; Lave, 1988; Lave & Wenger, 1991). According to this theory,

much of what is learned is specific and grounded within the situation in which it is

learned. Therefore, the knowledge cannot transfer to real-world situations (Lave,

1988).

Conversely, the other line supports the belief that it is possible to transfer knowl-

edge and/or skills to other tasks or contexts (Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1996).

For example, Larkin and Reif (1976) found that students could transfer the specific

skill of learning from a scientific text, which was taught in the context of physics,

and apply it in subjects other than physics. Students were taught the learning skill

of acquiring understanding from a text description of a quantitative relation (e.g. defi-

nition or law), as they were studying the text material of their physics course. To

develop the skill, students studied various physics relations, each described by a

text section accompanied by systematic questions which required demonstrating

the specific abilities necessary for applying that relation. Results showed that the train-

ing had an effect on students’ ability to acquire an understanding of new relations

from text as they studied the text material of their physics course. Moreover, students

were able to effectively use the skill of acquiring understanding of a relation from

outside physics. The authors concluded that students were successful in transferring

the skill of acquiring understanding and applying it to various unfamiliar quantitative

contexts.

Along the same lines, Zohar (1996) found that students in the eighth and ninth

grades were able to transfer their newly acquired thinking or reasoning strategies,

2 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

which were learned within a biology problem (e.g. seed germination), to a new

problem taken from a new biological topic (e.g. population size). Students’ develop-

ment was assessed through comparisons of pre- and post-interviews. The learning

environment described in that study involved a series of four lessons and was specially

designed to challenge students’ initial non-scientific reasoning strategies by creating a

cognitive conflict with their initial strategies. Attention was also given to metacogni-

tion. For example, students were encouraged during the different lessons in the

unit to reflect on their thinking strategies. Similarly, Chen and Klahr (1999) found

that second and fourth graders were able to acquire a domain-general processing

strategy—control of variables—through explicit one-day training combined with

probe questions in the context of one particular task (e.g. springs). These children

were able to transfer this basic strategy to other tasks (e.g. slopes or sinking). The

extent of transfer was related to developmental differences, where older children

were able to transfer the strategy more effectively than younger children even when

they performed equally on the source task. Mayer and Wittrock (1996) suggested

that the teaching of thinking skills can be incorporated within specific subject

domains, which would foster transfer to similar types of problems.

Transfer of knowledge or skills to similar problems or contexts has been explained

on the groundwork of analogical thinking. When learners are faced with a new context

similar to other known contexts, that seems to depend much more on reasoning by

analogy than on the application of general rules (Millar & Driver, 1987). This

process of analogical thinking in new similar problems has been suggested to

explain learners’ understandings of dynamics (Clement, 1981) and simple physical

phenomena (diSessa, 1983). As Rumelhart and Norman (1981) argue, the ability

to reason and use one’s knowledge appears to depend strongly on the learning

context in which the knowledge was originally acquired. They further claim that

most of the learner’s reasoning ability ‘is tied to particular bodies of knowledge’

(p. 338). So when learners transfer what they have learned from one context to

another, they utilize ‘a “horizontal” extension of schemes from one context to

another’ (Millar & Driver, 1987, p. 52). That translates into students trying out

models or schemes developed in one context to see if they work in new contexts. As

for the transfer of understandings to contexts that differ from that within which the

learning was originally acquired, Millar and Driver (1987) claim that it is mainly regu-

lated by the distance between the context in which the learning took place and the new

context of application.

Nature of Science

Nature of science (NOS) is an essential component in achieving scientific literacy, a

common goal of all recent reform movements in science education (American Associ-

ation for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989, 1993; Council of Ministers of

Education Canada [CMEC] Pan-Canadian Science Project, 1997; National Research

Council [NRC], 1996). In spite of the disagreements that exist among philosophers,

historians, and sociologists of science on a specific definition of NOS, there are some

Transfer of Nature of Science Understandings 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

aspects or characteristics of the scientific enterprise (Lederman, 2007) that are

derived from the way scientific knowledge is developed and that are also accessible

and relevant to K-12 students’ everyday lives (Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Lederman,

1998). These aspects include understanding that scientific knowledge is tentative

(subject to change); empirically based (based on and/or derived from observations

of the natural world); subjective (influenced by scientists’ background, experiences,

and biases); partly the product of human imagination and creativity (involves the

invention of explanations); and socially and culturally embedded. Two additional

aspects are the distinctions between observations and inferences, and the relationships

between scientific theories and laws.

Extensive efforts have been directed toward helping students develop adequate

understandings of NOS. Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000) contended that treat-

ing NOS as an affective learning outcome (Barufaldi, Bethel, & Lamb, 1977), which

falls under an implicit approach, has not shown effective results in improving under-

standings about NOS. Supporters of this implicit approach believe that just by ‘doing

science’, students would automatically gain an understanding of NOS. Alternatively,

Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000) argued that learning about NOS needs to be a

cognitive learning outcome and thus recommended an explicit approach that employs

instruction of various aspects of NOS. This explicit approach provides students with

opportunities to reflect on NOS aspects in relation to the lessons and/or activities in

which they are engaged. This is supported with evidence showing that explicit

approaches are relatively more effective than implicit ones in promoting students’

and teachers’ understandings of NOS (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000;

Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002).

In retrospect, the effectiveness of an explicit approach on students’ understandings

of NOS has been explored in several contexts (e.g. historical and inquiry). More

recently, there has been increasing evidence to support explicit NOS instruction in

the context of controversial socioscientific issues (Khishfe, 2012a; Khishfe &

Lederman, 2006; Matkins & Bell, 2007; Walker & Zeidler, 2007). Socioscientific

issues refer to social science-based problems that are open-ended, ill-structured, and

debatable (Kolsto, 2001; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005; Zeidler, 2003), such as global

warming, genetically modified food, and cloning. The underlying principle for utilizing

them as a context for NOS seems to be that students would be engaged with real data

use and interpretation, which would offer a favorable naturalistic milieu for promoting

their understandings of NOS (Bentley & Fleury, 1998; Matkins & Bell, 2007; Sadler,

Chambers, & Zeidler, 2002; Spector, Strong, & La Porta, 1998).

Transfer of NOS Understandings

With the disagreement about the issue of transfer of knowledge and/or skills, it would

be important to explore how this issue is manifested with the NOS understandings.

This goal is significant especially as the transfer of NOS understandings has not

been directly pursued in the science education research. In the midst of the lack of

research in this area, the present study focuses on the issue of transfer in its very

4 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

basic form. In that sense, this study could be considered exploratory and could pave

the way afterward for investigations that target transfer in its more extended and

complex forms. As noted earlier, a basic form of transfer focuses on the transfer

into similar contexts, while more extended and complex forms focus on the transfer

into contexts that share few similarities. Consequently, a pressing contemporary ques-

tion would be whether the knowledge about NOS is discipline-specific and limited to

the context in which it was acquired or whether it can be transferred to other similar

contexts. In particular, the purpose of this study was to (a) investigate the effectiveness

of explicit NOS instruction in the context of controversial socioscientific issues and

(b) explore whether the transfer of acquired NOS understandings, which were expli-

citly taught in the context of one socioscientific context, into other similar contexts

(familiar and unfamiliar) was possible. It should not be overlooked that there are

three contexts in the present study: (a) the learning context (genetic engineering)

and that was the context in which the learning took place for the participants, (b)

the familiar context (genetically modified food) and that was related to the science

content about genetic engineering, and (c) the unfamiliar context (water fluoridation)

that was unrelated to the learning context. The questions that guided the present

research were:

(1) What is the effectiveness of explicit NOS instruction in the context of controver-

sial socioscientific issues on tenth graders’ understandings of NOS?

(2) Do tenth graders transfer their acquired NOS understandings from the context of

learning (genetic engineering) into a similar familiar context (genetically modi-

fied food)?

(3) Do tenth graders transfer their acquired NOS understandings from the context of

learning (genetic engineering) into a similar unfamiliar context (water

fluoridation)?

It is also important to note that the first research question targets the effectiveness of

explicit NOS instruction in the context of controversial socioscientific issues. Finding

out whether the learning of NOS took place as a result of explicit instruction is critical

before one can address the issue about transfer. The second question investigates the

issue about transfer of participants’ NOS understandings into a similar context that is

related to the context of learning (familiar). And the third question explores the issue

about transfer of participants’ NOS understandings into a similar context that is not

related to the context of learning (unfamiliar).

Method

Participants

Participants in the present study were high school students at a private school in

Beirut, Lebanon. Generally speaking, the students at the school came from families

of middle socioeconomic status. The teacher taught two intact groups of the same

grade level at the school, where English was used as the language of instruction.

Transfer of Nature of Science Understandings 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

The teacher was a male in his late twenties. He had a Bachelor of Science (BS) in

Biology. At the time of the study, the teacher had been teaching Biology for five

years and was working on his Masters in Science Education. The teacher was purpo-

sefully selected based on evidence of improvement in his NOS understandings as well

as the ability to apply these informed NOS understandings into his classroom prac-

tice. The evidence included the teacher’s responses to an open-ended questionnaire,

NOS Survey (Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002), as well as the review of some science

lessons that targeted explicit instruction of NOS in the teacher’s classroom. The

teacher also showed an interest to participate in the study plus an intention to inte-

grate NOS and teach it explicitly within the regular science content.

Participants were a total of 45 10th graders in two intact sections. The two groups

were randomly assigned (flip of a coin) to the treatment and comparison groups. One

of the two sections, assigned as the treatment group, had 26 students but the complete

data were only available for 24 students (13 female and 11 male). This treatment

group was referred to as the ‘NOS group’. The average age of participants in this

group was 15.6 years. The second section, assigned as the comparison group, had

21 students (11 female and 10 male), and was referred to as the ‘non-NOS group’.

The average age of participants in this group was 15.5 years. The two groups were

similar with respect to ethnic diversity, science achievement, and age. The partici-

pants in both groups were Arabs with different religious sects. Their school science

achievement was not significantly different as indicated from the comparison of

their GPA in science class, t(43) ¼ 0.87, p . 0.05.

The Context of the Study: A unit of science content and NOS

Prior to the treatment, the researcher worked individually with the teacher to prepare

written detailed lesson plans of all the lessons in the unit. The treatment spanned six

weeks and involved a unit about genetic engineering. The two intact groups learned

about the same content of genetic engineering; the only difference was whether

NOS was being taught. Three aspects of NOS (empirical, tentative, and subjective)

were addressed and emphasized with the NOS group. These NOS aspects seem to

be closely related to the vicinity of socioscientific issues (Khishfe, 2012a; Zeidler,

Walker, Ackett, & Simmons, 2002).

Explicit reflective discussions about these NOS aspects were embedded within the

science lessons under study. A distributed model of NOS instruction was adopted

(Khishfe & Lederman, 2006, 2007) for the NOS group, where participants were pro-

vided with multiple reflective experiences to reflect on NOS aspects in relation to the

various lessons about genetic engineering. Dispersing NOS instruction across the unit

allows students to experience multiple exposures to NOS to be able to grasp the NOS

themes.

The topics discussed within the genetic engineering unit were (a) cloning, (b) stem

cell research, (c) DNA profiling, (d) genetic engineering in the field of agriculture, (e)

genetic engineering in the field of animal farming, and (f) genetic engineering in the

field of medicine. Each of these topics was discussed in several sessions, each of which

6 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

lasted 100 min. For both the NOS and non-NOS groups, the teacher composed het-

erogeneous groups consisting of about four students each. The student members in

each group were given certain tasks and/or cases to analyze and research. They

were also asked to take a position for or against the implementation of a certain

process in the case being discussed. The students were given one week to research

about the topic, and the 100-min sessions were allocated for discussions.

Six tasks were given for each group. The first two topics were cloning and stem cell

research. Students played four different roles: the scientist, the doctor, the religious

person, and the civil rights defender. In the DNA profiling lesson, the four roles

were: the scientist, the lawyer, the police officer, and the civil rights defender. The

fourth and fifth topics were about genetic engineering in agriculture and animal

farming, respectively, and the four roles were: the scientist, the environmentalist,

the ethicist, and the consumer advocate. The last topic addressed genetic engineering

in the medical field, and the four roles were: the scientist, the doctor, the ethicist, and

the companies’ owner.

For each of these topics, the teacher started by asking about the general definition

and the explanation of the purposes of the genetic engineering procedure discussed on

that day. The students taking the role of scientists summarized its steps and presented

its procedure. For example, student scientists presented the steps that were followed

in cloning and stem cell research. At several instances, they showed movies in class to

better explain the steps used by biologists to apply the process. Then the student

scientists briefed the advantages and the disadvantages of that procedure. By that

time, the students would have fully comprehended the steps that scientists apply

toward that procedure to make it happen. Then the floor was given for other students

to discuss as well as give their feedback and input to the student scientists from their

own perspectives. Doctors, for example, discussed the influence of such genetic

engineering processes on the medical field by highlighting their advantages, disadvan-

tages, expected career impact, and the potential success they would hold. Ethicists, on

the other hand, discussed these processes from a moral perspective; they mainly

argued whether such processes would invade people’s privacy or satisfy their personal

needs. Environmentalists discussed the potential threat of genetic engineering in agri-

culture to the environment. Alternatively, the religious advocates discussed whether

or not such processes defeat God’s will and whether religious ideologies agree with

such actions. All in all, these genetic engineering topics were discussed thoroughly

from different perspectives by the student small-groups in both the NOS and non-

NOS groups.

To equalize the engagement time that participants in the NOS group spent discuss-

ing NOS aspects, participants in the non-NOS groups were asked to elaborate more

on the discussions and present their findings and predictions about the topic. As such,

the entire 100-min sessions for the non-NOS group participants were dedicated to

discussions given by the different group figures about the steps of the genetic engin-

eering processes, its positive and/or negative impacts, its social and ethical aspects,

and its other implications. As for the NOS group, participants engaged in discussions

and reflections of the NOS aspects following the discussions given by the different

Transfer of Nature of Science Understandings 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

group figures. So the 100-min sessions were focused on discussions of the different

topics followed by NOS discussions.

For the NOS group, discussions about the empirical aspect of NOS started off with

the teacher asking questions such as, ‘What did scientists base their conclusions on?’

Students’ responses varied among ‘experimental data’, ‘observations’, and ‘prior

knowledge’. The teacher emphasized that scientists base their conclusions and sug-

gestions on observations, experimental data, and prior knowledge. Such guiding ques-

tions were used to help students discuss their understandings about the empirical

aspect throughout the various lessons in the unit.

At many instances, the teacher exploited the notion that different students some-

times got contradictory answers about the efficiency of these processes and their

success potentials. Such instances initiated discussions about the subjective aspect

of NOS. For example, the teacher used the issue of DNA profiling as an example

to discuss and reflect on the subjective aspect of NOS. The issue about the claim of

some scientists that DNA profiling is not 100% accurate was used to demonstrate

to students that scientists might have a consensus about only some scientific issues.

The teacher further explained that two scientists who might have graduated from

the same university might still think differently about the success of this procedure.

With the help of students, the teacher related this discrepancy in conclusions to the

idea that each scientist had a different perspective when judging on that matter.

The term ‘perspective’ was defined by students as personal beliefs, personal experi-

ences, background knowledge, and even religious beliefs. Based on that, the students

concluded that scientists usually bring such beliefs into their work, which would defi-

nitely influence their standpoint. This subjective aspect was stressed throughout the

unit with many of these discussions. At many instances, the teacher pointed out

that even scientists might adopt a certain position and then might only emphasize

the advantages and hide the disadvantages of their position. Some of these scientists

might also prioritize their personal benefits. For example, when they are hired to do

specific work and thereby endorse a certain position, they would only stress the

data that support their stand even when they are fully aware of the other positions.

To address the tentative aspect of NOS, the teacher raised questions as, ‘Do you

think these scientists would change their knowledge or conclusions later on, and

why?’ For example, in the DNA profiling task, some students replied that ‘yes, if scien-

tists have better technology, it will reduce the contamination of the DNA samples, and

this might make the scientists change their opinions about the inaccuracy of the DNA

profiling’. At that point, the teacher emphasized that what scientists have as the ‘best’

existing conclusion might change in the future. That means that scientists might

change their conclusions as there is nothing in science as the ‘absolute truth’. This

idea about the change in scientific knowledge was brought up at various points

throughout the unit. Examples were taken from the different lessons about how scien-

tists might have an agreement on something as completely beneficial but that might

change in the future because they might have a broader perspective on the issue

with the availability of more data and observations, which might lead scientists to

change their conclusions.

8 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

Classroom discussions about these emphasized NOS aspects took place during

every other session with the NOS group. Other than the classroom discussions, stu-

dents responded to written questions, whose purpose was to focus on the discussed

ideas about NOS aspects and to further elaborate on them. Examples of these

written questions are found in Appendix 1. The empirical aspect was discussed

through the question, ‘What did you base your conclusion on?’ Moreover, the subjec-

tive component was discussed by raising the questions, ‘How can you explain that you

reached different conclusions from the same data, and to what extent is this similar to

what scientists do?’ Finally, the tentative aspect of NOS was targeted with the follow-

ing question, ‘Do you think our conclusions will change?’

Data Collection and Instruments

To assess participants’ NOS views and their ability to transfer their NOS understand-

ings, an open-ended questionnaire (Appendix 2) followed by individual semi-

structured interviews was administered prior to and by the end of the study.

Observations of the sessions for both groups were also conducted throughout the unit.

Questionnaire. The questionnaire included two open-ended scenarios that address

the controversial socioscientific issues about genetically modified food and water flu-

oridation. The two scenarios were followed by questions relating to NOS (Appendix

2), where respondents were asked to present their views about the tentative, empirical,

and subjective aspects of NOS.

The two scenarios have been used in a previous study (Khishfe, 2012b) with 11th

grade students. However, only the items that address the purpose about the transfer of

the three emphasized NOS aspects were used in the present study. The content val-

idity of the scenarios had been previously established by the input of experts (two

science educators, three biologists, two ethics professors, and three high school

biology teachers) and that involved revisions based on the feedback given by

experts. Pilot-testing of the scenarios for this study was also conducted with 38

10th grade participants in two non-participant schools in the same city, and some par-

ticipants were also interviewed to confirm their understandings and interpretations of

the different items.

Interviews. To further establish the face validity of the questionnaire, semi-

structured individual interviews were used in order to ensure that the researchers’

interpretations corresponded to those of participants. A random sample of 10 partici-

pants, which makes about 25% of the total participants, was chosen for individual

interviews. Five participants from each group were interviewed following the admin-

istration of the pre-, and post-questionnaire. In this way, the five students selected for

post-instruction interviews were the same students selected for the pre-instruction

interviews. The interviews lasted 25–45 min, and students were given their question-

naires and asked to explain and elaborate on their responses to the two different scen-

arios. The interviews were audiotaped and then were transcribed verbatim.

Transfer of Nature of Science Understandings 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

Observations. All the sessions for both the NOS and the non-NOS groups were

observed by a graduate assistant, who was familiar with NOS issues. Based on the

classroom observations, field notes were generated for each lesson throughout the

unit. This was done for both the NOS and non-NOS groups. For the NOS group,

documentation of the field notes was helpful in determining whether and how the

three emphasized NOS aspects were explicitly addressed to the ‘same degree’. For

the non-NOS group, observations helped to make sure that the NOS aspects were

not explicitly addressed across the different lessons of the unit.

Data Analysis

It is important to note that only two intact classes were included in this study, which

dictates the use of the class and not the students as the unit of analysis. A sample size

this small would not allow for statistical analysis. What worked against the use of stu-

dents as unit of analysis are the issues of random selection and the violation of the

assumption of independence. The instruction of NOS (treatment) was applied to

the class; students in a class do not react independently to any instructional treatment

(Lederman & Flick, 2005). Yet, despite the inappropriateness of the use of statistical

analysis, there was in-depth data collection and analysis to address the research

questions.

All the data were analyzed by the author. The first stage involved analyzing the field

notes based on the classroom observations, which was done continuously throughout

the course of the study. Following each session, the field notes were checked against

the lesson plans for the integration of the three emphasized NOS aspects for the NOS

group and its absence for the non-NOS group. At the end of the study, the field notes

were also checked for the multiple exposures of the emphasized NOS aspects in

relation to the different science lessons addressed in the unit.

The second stage targeted the analysis of the pre- and post-instruction interview

transcripts and the corresponding questionnaires separately to generate profiles of

participants’ views of the emphasized NOS aspects. The two independently generated

profiles were compared for each interviewed participant. The analysis showed that the

two profiles were comparable for each interviewed participant.

Then, each participant questionnaire was analyzed to categorize students’

responses into naive, informed, or intermediary for each NOS aspect. The categoriz-

ations of participants’ views were carried out by the author and another science edu-

cation researcher who had previous experience in NOS research. The analysis done by

the second researcher was blind to whether the questionnaires belonged to the NOS

or the non-NOS group or whether it was the pre- or post-instruction data. Consensus

between the two researchers was achieved across all emphasized NOS aspects after

several discussions and consultation with the data.

A participant’s understanding was categorized as ‘naive’ when that understanding

of the target NOS aspect was not aligned with the contemporary views of NOS high-

lighted in the science education reform documents (AAAS, 1989, 1993; NRC, 1996).

An understanding was categorized as ‘intermediary’, particularly as the ‘multiple’

10 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

form that occurred in this study, when there were co-existing fragmented views that

sometimes contradicted each other (Khishfe, 2008). An ‘informed’ understanding

corresponded with contemporary views of NOS accepted by science philosophers,

scientists, and science educators.

To answer the first question about the effectiveness of explicit NOS instruction in

the context of controversial socioscientific issues, the changes in participants’ under-

standings of NOS from pre- to post-instruction were compared between the NOS

group and the non-NOS group for each of the three emphasized NOS aspects. As

for the second question about whether participants transfer their NOS aspects

learned in the context of genetic engineering into the familiar context, we looked at

the open-ended scenario of the familiar context about genetically modified food

(Appendix 2). The understandings of NOS for participants in the NOS group were

compared between pre- and post-instruction for each of the three emphasized NOS

aspects. To answer the third question about whether participants transfer their under-

standings of the NOS aspects learned in the context of genetic engineering into the

unfamiliar context of water fluoridation, the changes in the understandings of NOS

for participants in the NOS group participants’ understandings were compared

between the two scenarios (familiar and unfamiliar) for each of the NOS aspects.

Results

The results are presented in three sections, which address the development of partici-

pants’ understandings for each NOS aspect in relation to the familiar scenario (geneti-

cally modified food) and the unfamiliar scenario (water fluoridation). In each section,

the participants’ pre- and post-instruction data are presented for scenario 1 (familiar)

and for scenario 2 (unfamiliar), followed by a comparison of the percentage gains of

participants’ understandings between the two scenarios.

Generally, the pre- and post-instruction data showed no improvements in partici-

pants’ understandings of the subjective, tentative, and empirical aspects of NOS for

the non-NOS group, relating to the familiar and unfamiliar contexts. In contrast,

there were considerable improvements in participants’ understandings of the NOS

aspects for the NOS group in relation to both the familiar and unfamiliar contexts.

This was evident for all three emphasized NOS aspects. Table 1 provides a summary

of the results showing the percentage of participants with informed, intermediary,

and naive views of the emphasized NOS aspects for the pre- and post-instruction

data for the two scenarios. The percentage difference of participants demonstrating

informed understandings between the pre- and post-test was represented by ‘D’

(Table 1) and it points toward the percentage gains. Following is a discussion of

these results for the pre- and post-instruction in relation to each of the emphasized

NOS aspects.

Subjective Aspect of NOS

Scenario 1. There were significant differences between the pre- and post-instruction

NOS understandings for the NOS group in response to the familiar scenario about

Transfer of Nature of Science Understandings 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

Table 1. Percentage of participants with informed, intermediary, and naive understandings of the emphasized NOS aspects for the pre- and post-

instruction data for scenarios 1 and 2

Subjective NOS Tentative NOS Empirical NOS

Pre Post △ Pre Post △ Pre Post △

Scenario 1

Treatment group (n ¼ 24)

Informed 17% (4) 83% (20) 66% (16) 12% (3) 50% (12) 38% (9) 21% (5) 63% (15) 42% (10)

Intermediary 17% (4) 4% (1) 25% (6) 17% (4) 13% (3) 21% (5)

Naive 66% (16) 13% (3) 63% (15) 33% (8) 66% (16) 16% (4)

Comparison group (n ¼ 21)

Informed 10% (2) 24% (5) 14% (3) 14% (3) 14% (3) 0% 19% (4) 14% (3) 25% (1)

Intermediary 14% (3) 5% (1) 29% (6) 14% (3) 24% (5) 14% (3)

Naive 76% (16) 71% (15) 57% (12) 71% (15) 57% (12) 71% (15)

Scenario 2

Treatment group (n ¼ 24)

Informed 21% (5) 79%(19) 58%(14) 8% (2) 42%(10) 33% (8) 17% (4) 58%(14) 41%(10)

Intermediary 17% (4) 4%(1) 27% (6) 21% (5) 17% (4) 17% (4)

Naive 62%(15) 17% (4) 65%(16) 37% (9) 66%(16) 25% (6)

Comparison group (n ¼ 21)

Informed 19% (4) 24% (5) 5% (1) 5% (1) 10% (2) 5% (1) 10% (2) 19% (4) 9% (2)

Intermediary 5% (1) 5% (1) 24% (5) 24% (5) 24% (5) 24% (5)

Naive 76% (16) 71% (15) 71% (15) 66%(14) 66% (14) 57% (12)

12

R.

Khish

fe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

genetically modified food (scenario 1). The percentage gains of participants for the

subjective aspect were 66% for the NOS group vs. 14% for the non-NOS group

(Table 1). These comparisons are clearly shown in Figure 1.

At the beginning of the study, more than half of the participants in both the NOS

and non-NOS groups related the difference in scientists’ conclusions when looking at

the same data to features pertaining to the data and not to the scientists themselves.

For example, participants explained that scientists have different data and questions

and consequently they would have different conclusions:

Yes, scientists would reach different conclusions because each one scientist has his own

data and his own experiments. (S-22, pre-questionnaire, scenario 1, NOS group)

Scientists would have different conclusions when they have different questions. (S-20,

pre-questionnaire, scenario 1, non-NOS group)

By the end of the study, the understandings of the non-NOS participants did not

improve for the subjective aspect of NOS. However, more than half of the participants

in the NOS group elucidated informed understandings of this aspect. For example,

participants were able to relate to the notion that scientists might have different

interpretations when looking at the same data because of different perspectives and

backgrounds:

Scientists have different backgrounds � different perspectives � different interpret-

ations � different conclusions. (S-11, post-questionnaire, scenario 1, NOS group)

Scenario 2. Then again, there were significant differences between the pre- and

post-instruction NOS understandings for the NOS group in response to the second

unfamiliar scenario about water fluoridation (scenario 2). The percentage gains of

participants for the subjective aspect were 58% for the NOS group vs. 5% for the

Figure 1. Comparisons of the percentage gains of participants for the emphasized NOS aspects

between the two groups across the two scenarios

Transfer of Nature of Science Understandings 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

non-NOS group (Table 1). Figure 1 clearly displays this comparison between the two

groups for scenario 2.

Prior to any NOS instruction, participants in both the NOS and non-NOS groups

similarly related the scientists’ different conclusions to difference in the data and not

to factors concerning the scientists themselves. Following instruction, participants in

the non-NOS group did not show any development in their understandings about this

aspect, whereas participants in the NOS group discussed how scientists might reach

different conclusions because of their different backgrounds leading them to different

perspectives:

Each scientists has a different background, so each has a different opinion and perspective

on the issue. (S-14, post-questionnaire, scenario 2, NOS group)

Comparison Between Scenarios 1 and 2. Figure 1 illustrates the comparison of these

percentage gains of participants’ understandings of the subjective aspect between

the two scenarios. The following example demonstrates one of the NOS group partici-

pant’s responses when discussing the same question targeting the subjective aspect in

relation to the two scenarios. For both scenarios, this participant elucidated naive

understandings about the subjective aspect and these naive understandings were con-

sistent for the two scenarios:

Each scientist has his own set of rules so each will do different experiments so of course

get different conclusions. (S-1, pre-questionnaire, scenario 1, NOS group)

Scientists would have different conclusions because each scientist would be looking at his

own data because he makes his own experiments. (S-1, pre-questionnaire, scenario 2,

NOS group)

Following NOS instruction, the same participant showed informed understandings

of the subjective aspect that were consistent for the two scenarios:

They [scientists] can have different conclusions because they can have different points of

views and these are based on religious and ethical beliefs and personal experience can play

a role. (S-1, post-questionnaire, scenario 1, NOS group)

The scientists can have different perspectives on this issue and that relates to their differ-

ent background, their moral and ethical beliefs. (S-1, post-questionnaire, scenario 2,

NOS group)

Tentative Aspect of NOS

Scenario 1. Similarly, there were significant differences between the pre- and post-

instruction NOS understandings of the tentative aspect for the NOS group in

response to the first scenario. The percentage gains of participants for this aspect

were 38% for the NOS group vs. 0% for the non-NOS group (Table 1); the compari-

sons are shown in Figure 1.

Prior to any instruction, more than half of the participants in both groups held naive

understandings of the tentative aspect. Most of these participants did not believe that

14 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

scientific knowledge might change as they considered that scientific knowledge is

‘true’ and ‘proven’:

Knowledge about GMF [genetically modified food] should not change in the future as it

has already been proven. (S-24, pre-questionnaire, scenario 1, NOS group)

I am sure that that this knowledge will not change because this is something that has pre-

viously been established. (S-13, pre-questionnaire, scenario 1, non-NOS group)

By the end of the study, participants in the non-NOS group were consistent in their

naive views about the change of scientific knowledge. As for participants in the NOS

group, more than 40% of them expressed informed understandings of the tentative

aspect. Some of these participants explained that scientific knowledge might change

in the future because of new evidence. Other participants described the change in

relation to new interpretations. Following is the response of a participant who had jus-

tified the change of scientific knowledge in terms of new evidence, which would lead

to new interpretations and then he related that to revising the scientific knowledge:

Yes, the knowledge about genetically modified food might change in the future if we find

more research is done. And with more studies, there will be new interpretations are made

so this would change what we already know. (S-9, post-interview, scenario 1, NOS group)

Scenario 2. Then again, there were significant differences between the pre- and post-

instruction NOS understandings for the NOS group in response to the second scen-

ario. The percentage gains of participants for the tentative aspect were 33% for the

NOS group vs. 5% for the non-NOS group (Table 1), and these comparisons are

shown in Figure 1.

At the beginning of the study, a majority of the participants in both the NOS and

non-NOS groups showed naive understandings of the tentative aspect. Responses

varied among participants with the overall idea being that scientific knowledge will

not and should not change as this knowledge had already been ‘proven’ to be ‘true’:

I am not quite sure why would knowledge change, by now we know what we need to know

for that matter about adding fluoride [to water], it does cause cancer. (S-15, pre-

questionnaire, scenario 2, NOS group)

It [scientific knowledge] does not change in the future quite simply because it is true.

(S-8, pre-questionnaire, scenario 2, non-NOS group)

By the end of the study, the understandings of participants in the non-NOS group

did not witness any particular progress, whereas participants in the NOS group

related the change in the scientific knowledge about water fluoridation to more

evidence and research. As one participant has put it:

Yes, the knowledge about water fluoridation might change, it will because we will know

more about effects of water fluoridation, well with the newly updated researches concern-

ing the effects of water fluoridation. (S-6, post-interview, scenario 2, NOS group)

Comparison Between Scenarios 1 and 2. The comparison of the percentage gains of

participants’ understandings of the tentative aspect between the two scenarios is

Transfer of Nature of Science Understandings 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

shown in Figure 1. Following is an example of one participant’s understanding of this

aspect and how that understanding had developed after explicit NOS instruction. At

the beginning of the study, this participant believed that the scientific knowledge

about genetically modified food and water fluoridation will stay ‘true’ and will not

change:

The knowledge about genetically modified food will not change in the future. (S-16, pre-

questionnaire, scenario 1, NOS group)

The effects about water fluoridation will stay true in the future. (S-16, pre-questionnaire,

scenario 2, NOS group)

By the end of the study, the participant’s understanding of this aspect changed; he

explained that the knowledge might change as there is no absolute ‘truth’ in science

and it might change with new research. This informed understanding about the ten-

tative aspect was consistent in both scenarios as shown in the following:

Yes [knowledge about genetically modified food might change] since there is no absolute

truth in science and some knowledge might change about the issue . . . more research

experiments would be held in order to examine genetic engineering. (S-16, post-inter-

view, scenario 1, NOS group)

What we know about effects of water fluoridation might change in future because we

cannot say there is absolute truth in science and continuous research is done and this

might change. (S-16, post-interview, scenario 2, NOS group)

Empirical Aspect of NOS

Scenario 1. In the same way, there were significant differences between the pre- and

post-instruction NOS understandings of the empirical aspect for the NOS group in

response to the first scenario. The percentage gains of participants for this aspect

were 42% for the NOS group vs. 25% for the non-NOS group (Table 1). Compari-

sons between the two groups of this aspect are demonstrated in Figure 1.

Initially, more than half of the participants in both groups held naive understand-

ings of the empirical aspect. These participants did not relate to the role of evidence

involved in the production of scientific knowledge about genetically modified food.

Some of these participants related to ‘authority’ as a measure of scientific knowledge,

as shown in the following quotes:

The scientists themselves said that genetically modified rice can reduce blindness and I do

believe those scientists because they know best. (S-2, pre-questionnaire, scenario 1, NOS

group)

Issues about the genetically modified food have been published in many journals by scien-

tists, so who am I to judge that? (S-3, pre-questionnaire, scenario 1, non-NOS group)

At the conclusion of the study, participants in the non-NOS group did not show any

improvement in their understandings about the empirical aspect. In contrast, a

majority of participants (63%) in the NOS group showed informed understandings

16 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

of this aspect. These participants brought up the role of experimental data or evidence

from research in relation to the issue about genetically modified food, as illustrated in

the following response:

What we have is not enough. We still need more experimental results in order to get evi-

dence to show how the modification of genes would affect the rice. (S-4, post-question-

naire, scenario 1, NOS group)

Scenario 2. All the same, there were significant differences between the pre and post-

instruction NOS understandings for the NOS group in response to the second scen-

ario. The percentage gains of participants for the empirical aspect were 42% for the

NOS group vs. 25% for the non-NOS group (Table 1); these comparisons are

shown in Figure 1.

At first, a majority of the participants in both groups (66%) held naive understand-

ings of the empirical aspect. For example, many of those participants mainly based

their claims and ideas on authority, such as FDA and scientists, rather than on

evidence:

I am satisfied with the water fluoridation situation and how it affects people. Everyone

else should also be okay about it because this has been approved by FDA. (S-18, pre-

questionnaire, scenario 2, NOS group)

Well, if some scientists say that it shows no harm then I believe them because they are the

scientists not me. (S-9, pre-questionnaire, scenario 2, non-NOS group)

By the end of the study, the understandings of participants in the non-NOS group

did not seem to change and move away from their initial naive understandings. While

more than half of the participants in the NOS group expressed informed understand-

ings of this aspect; these participants referred to the important role of empirical evi-

dence in the production, the development, and/or the change of scientific

knowledge, as shown in the following response:

This knowledge about effects of water fluoridation might change if the group against

water fluoridation can actually back up their debates with actual evidence, so there

needs to be more studies and research about this. (S-12, post-questionnaire, scenario

2, NOS group)

Comparison Between Scenarios 1 and 2. Figure 1 shows comparison of these percen-

tage gains of participants’ understandings of the empirical aspect between the two

scenarios. Following is an example of the development of one participant’s under-

standing of the empirical aspect following explicit NOS instruction. At the beginning

of the study, this participant did not seem to appreciate the role of empirical evidence

in the production and development of scientific knowledge about genetically modified

food and water fluoridation. Her responses hinted at her belief and trust in the ‘auth-

ority’ rather than in the scientific empirical evidence:

What we know about genetically modified food is what we were told about by people in

charge. (S-5, pre-questionnaire, scenario 1, NOS group)

Transfer of Nature of Science Understandings 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

I was not familiar with water fluoridation before reading this text. But I think that if

people in charge want to add Fluoride to water, then they know better about this

world. (S-5, pre-questionnaire, scenario 2, NOS group)

At the conclusion of the study, this participant did undergo major progress in her

understanding of the empirical aspect. She was able to explicate the role of empirical

evidence in the production, development, and revision of scientific knowledge. And

this development in her understanding of this aspect was apparent in her responses

to both scenarios about the genetically modified food and water fluoridation as

follows:

Yes, the studies are needed to establish what we know and new studies might change the

issue, since new studies can bring new evidence and that new evidence can make scientists

develop the information of the issue. For example, with genetic engineering let’s take the

example of the DNA profiling. Okay, what we know about DNA profiling 10 years ago is

different from what we know about DNA profiling in our time. (S-5, post-interview, scen-

ario 1, NOS group)

Since with science there are new further studies and research and this will change knowl-

edge about the issue. Yes with further studies and research, they [scientists] will have

more evidence to look at so might change it [knowledge about water fluoridation]. (S-

5, post-interview, scenario 2, NOS group)

Discussion

Helping students understand NOS is a critical component in achieving scientific lit-

eracy, which is a common goal of all recent reform movements in science education

(AAAS, 1989, 1993; NRC, 1996). The desired outcome is to have students learn

the NOS aspects and then transfer them to different learning contexts and that this

understanding will eventually help them in their everyday activities. Ausubel and

Robinson (1969) describe the issue of transfer as ‘one of the most ancient and impor-

tant concerns of the educational theorist’ (p. 136).

The first purpose of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of explicit NOS

instruction in the context of controversial socioscientific issues on 10th graders’

understandings of NOS. Results showed no improvements in students’ understand-

ings of the three NOS aspects for the comparison (non-NOS) group, in relation to

the familiar and unfamiliar contexts. On the other hand, the explicit NOS instruction

improved students’ understandings of NOS for the NOS group in relation to the fam-

iliar and unfamiliar contexts. These results were not unanticipated and they do

support previous findings that showed improvements in students’ and teachers’

understandings of NOS as a result of an explicit approach (e.g. Abd-El-Khalick,

2001; Abd-El-Khalick et al., 1998; Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002; Khishfe &

Lederman, 2006; Bell, Lederman, & Abd-El-Khalick, 2000).

The second purpose of the study was to investigate whether the transfer of acquired

NOS understandings into similar contexts, whether familiar or unfamiliar, is possible.

The familiar context was related to the context in which NOS understandings were

18 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

acquired, and it focused on the content about genetically modified food. The unfami-

liar context was related to the content about water fluoridation. At the outset, the

finding about the development of students’ understandings of NOS in relation to

the unfamiliar context offers potential evidence to propose that the goal of transfer

of acquired NOS views into other contexts is realistic. In other words, the knowledge

of NOS learned in a certain context can be associated with other contexts. For

instance, the pre-instruction data showed that more than half of the participants

had naive understandings of the emphasized NOS aspects in response to the two scen-

arios (Table 1). Participants learned about NOS aspects in the specific context of

genetic engineering that was addressed in the unit. The post-instruction data indi-

cated that the NOS group participants were able to transfer the acquired NOS under-

standings to the familiar context of genetically modified food and the unfamiliar

context of water fluoridation. It can then be argued that this finding about the poten-

tial transfer of NOS understandings to the unfamiliar context suggests a possibility

that NOS understandings might be generalizable and not necessarily context-

bound. Following is a discussion of the factors that could have smoothed the progress

of transfer. These factors mainly focus on issues related to the instruction and appli-

cation of NOS.

To facilitate the process of transfer (Perkins & Salomon, 1989), the learning

environment should be designed to enhance students’ preparation for future learning

and allow the productive use of students’ acquired knowledge, skills, and motivations

(De Corte, 2003). Therefore, the way in which students learn knowledge will influ-

ence their ability to transfer that knowledge to new contexts (Mayer & Wittrock,

1996). Toward that end, students need to be engaged during instruction in reflection

and ‘thinking back on what they did and why’ (Woods, 1996, p. 76). It should be

emphasized that in this study students were provided with opportunities to engage

in purposeful discussions, guided reflections, and specific questioning in the

context of the activities and lessons. Participants engaged in discussions of NOS

aspects in several experiences that were related to the science content they were study-

ing and had to answer discussion questions and then discuss their responses as a whole

group. The effectiveness of explicit instruction in promoting transfer has been docu-

mented in previous research (Chen & Klahr, 1999). Under this framework, the expli-

cit and reflective component would be an essential condition for promoting the

transfer of NOS understandings from one context to another. However, the results

of the present study do not support the findings in a previous research (Abd-El-

Khalick, 2001) about the content-boundedness of NOS understandings. Although

the problem of transfer was not directly explored in that study, Abd-El-Khalick

found a lack of transfer of teachers’ NOS understandings from the context of the

atom (context of learning) that was addressed in the course to the context of dinosaur

extinction (context of new application) that was unfamiliar. A possible explanation for

these contradictory results might be related to the context in which the learning took

place and the context of the new application. In the study by Abd-El-Khalick (2001),

the context of learning and the context of the new application were both scientific. In

the present study, the context of learning (genetic engineering)and those of the new

Transfer of Nature of Science Understandings 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

applications (for the familiar and unfamiliar) were both socioscientific. The socio-

scientific issues have been put forward as an optimum medium for NOS instruction

(e.g. Bentley & Fleury, 1998; Sadler et al., 2002; Spector et al., 1998). Therefore,

we propose that the transfer of participants’ NOS understandings might have

occurred because the contexts of NOS instruction and the new applications were

socioscientific, as compared with scientific. However, this idea needs to be explored

in future research investigations.

Another closely related and overlapping condition for successful transfer dictates

that the distance should not be too wide between the new context of application

and the context in which learning took place (Kok & Woolnough, 1994; Millar &

Driver, 1987). This narrow distance can be conceptualized in terms of the analogical

thinking by the learner about the two contexts. Such analogical thinking brings about

making connections with the new context. When the learner confronts a new experi-

ence or context, he/she tries to match it with similar experiences or contexts in the

past. Human reasoning is primarily based on the identification and comparison of pat-

terns. In the present study, the first case had two contexts that addressed the context

of learning and the familiar and the second case had the two contexts that represented

the context of learning and the unfamiliar. The two contexts in each case addressed

controversial socioscientific issues and thus were closely related (Kok & Woolnough,

1994) in the sense of sharing common features such as addressing ill-structured pro-

blems (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005). As such, we conclude that the transfer of the acquired

NOS understandings to another similar context, which occurred for more than one-

third of the participants in this study, was based on reasoning by analogy. This situ-

ation would also fall under what Mayer and Wittrock (1996) referred to as analogical

transfer. They explain that learners would solve a new problem (target) from what

they know about a related problem (base). They refer to the base problem as an

analog if it shares the same underlying structure and many surface similarities. There-

fore, participants would have formed a preliminary mental model of the unfamiliar

context or the target (water fluoridation) based on the analog or the context they

have already been familiar with (genetic engineering). With both the analog and

target sharing some similar features, an analogy would have been drawn between

them. The process of identifying and comparing the similar features would be done

through mapping of the similarities, and that is how students would have transmitted

their understandings to the new unfamiliar context.

Therefore, it would be important to explore the ability of participants to transfer

their acquired NOS understandings into other contexts (whether familiar or unfami-

liar) that share fewer similarities with the context of learning and thus have a wider

distance. Another point that deserves attention is whether the development of stu-

dents’ abilities to use analogical thinking can be attained. It might come as natural

for some students, but this can be learned for the other students (Clement, 1981).

All these issues are left for future studies to investigate.

An additional condition that might have enhanced successful transfer is related to the

actual instruction. The distributed model of NOS instruction (Khishfe & Lederman,

2006, 2007) adopted in this study provided students with multiple reflective

20 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

experiences to reflect on NOS aspects in relation to the different lessons. This allowed

students to link between the different epistemological and conceptual ideas presented

through the science curriculum (Leach, Hind, & Ryder, 2003), and this might have

promoted the learning and the transfer of NOS understandings. As noted by Chen

and Klahr (1999), the multiple diverse experiences targeting a similar theme would

promote the construction of a generalized mental model (Johnson-Laird, 1980) or

schema (Brown, Kane, & Echols, 1986; Chen & Daehler, 1989; Gentner, 1983;

Gick & Holyoak, 1983) that allows the collection of similar instances (Brown &

Kane, 1988), and that might trigger analogical thinking and hence facilitate transfer.

Implications and Recommendations

As noted earlier, this issue about the transfer of acquired NOS understandings into

other similar and different science contexts has not been directly pursued in the

science education research. Therefore, the potential evidence of transfer, even in its

basic form manifested in this study, suggests an encouraging and promising prospect

to enlighten the enduring journey related to the teaching and learning about NOS.

Nevertheless, these results are limited to the participants and context within which

this research was conducted. This is a limitation of the present study as the partici-

pation of only one teacher might relate the results to a teacher effect. Yet, there is

the possibility that the findings reflect a more general trend about NOS as being gen-

eralizable and not context-bound. Therefore, testing this possibility—about the trans-

fer of students’ acquired NOS understandings into different contexts—with different

science teachers within different science disciplines might be fruitful in future

research. Additionally, more research is needed to explore the factors that facilitate

and/or hinder the transfer of NOS understandings into new different contexts.

More importantly, research into the transfer of NOS views to similar and more

divergent contexts is in order to help confirm these results. In accordance with that,

it would be important to explore the ability of students to transfer their acquired

NOS understandings into other contexts that share fewer similarities with the

context of learning (i.e. have a wider distance). For example, transfer between socio-

scientific and scientific contexts needs to be investigated in future studies.

With the finding that the acquired NOS understandings might be transferred to

similar contexts, educators do not have to necessarily integrate NOS instruction

into every science context. Rather, NOS can be integrated into some contexts, and

students would be able to transfer the acquired NOS understandings into the

similar contexts. Based on that, the implications for classroom teaching about NOS

are promising.

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary

science courses: Abandoning scientism, But . . .. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3),

215–233.

Transfer of Nature of Science Understandings 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

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(4), 417–436.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the

nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education,

22(7), 665–701.

Alexander, P., & Judy, J. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in aca-

demic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58, 375–404.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, J.R., Reder, L.M., & Simon, H.A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational

Researcher, 25(4), 5–11.

Ausubel, D., & Robinson, F. (1969). School learning: An introduction to educational psychology.

London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Barufaldi, J.P., Bethel, L.J., & Lamb, W.G. (1977). The effect of a science methods course on the

philosophical view of science among elementary education majors. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 14, 289–294.

Bell, R.L., Lederman, N.G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon one’s con-

ception of the nature of science: A follow-up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6),

563–581.

Bentley, M.L., & Fleury, S.C. (1998). Of starting points and destinations: Teacher education and

the nature of science. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science and science education: Ratio-

nales and strategies (pp. 277–291). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Bransford, J., & Schwartz, D. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple impli-

cations. In A. Iran-Nejad & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education

(pp. 61–100). Washington, DC: The American Education Research Association.

Brown, A.L., & Kane, M.J. (1988). Preschool children can learn to transfer: Learning to learn and

learning from examples. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 493–523.

Brown, A.L., Kane, M.J., & Echols, C.H. (1986). Young children’s mental models determine ana-

logical transfer across problems with a common goal structure. Cognitive Development, 1(2),

103–121.

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Edu-

cational Researcher, 17, 32–42.

Chen, Z., & Daehler, M.W. (1989). Positive and negative transfer in analogical problem solving by

6-year-old children. Cognitive Development, 4(4), 327–344.

Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of

variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098–1120.

Clement, J. (1981). Analogy generation in scientific problem solving. Proceedings of the Third Annual

Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Berkeley, CA (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED228044).

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada Pan–Canadian Science Project. (1997). Common frame-

work of science learning outcomes K to 12. Retrieved from http://204.225.6.243/science/

framework/

DeCorte, E. (2003). Transfer as the productive use of acquired knowledge, skills, and motivations.

Current Directions of Psychological Science, 12(4), 142–146.

diSessa, A.A. (1983). Phenomenology and the evolution of intuition. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens

(Eds.), Mental model (pp. 15–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science,

7(2), 155–170.

Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology,

15, 1–38.

22 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1980). Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 4, 71–115.

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. (2012a). Nature of science and decision making. International Journal of Science

Education, 34(1), 67–100.

Khishfe, R. (2012b). Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation

skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

49(4), 489–514.

Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). The 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. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic:

Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 377–394.

Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2007). Relationship between instructional context and understand-

ings of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 939–961.

Kok, A., & Woolnough, B.E. (1994). Science process skills: Are they generalisable? Research in

Science and Technological Education, 12(1), 31–42.

Kolsto, S.D. (2001). Science literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of

controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310.

Larkin, J.H., & Reif, F. (1976). Analysis and teaching of a general skill for studying scientific text.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(4), 431–440.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Leach, J., Hind, A., & Ryder, J. (2003). Designing and evaluating short teaching interventions

about the epistemology of science in high school classrooms. Science Education, 87(6),

831–848.

Lederman, N., & Flick, L. (2005). Beware of the unit of analysis: It may be you!!. School Science and

Mathematics, 105(8), 381–383.

Lederman, N.G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman

(Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Matkins, J.J., & Bell, R.L. (2007). Awakening the scientist inside: Global climate change and the

nature of science in an elementary science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education,

18, 137–163.

Mayer, R.E., & Wittrock, M.C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee

(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 47–62). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster

Macmillan.

Millar, R., & Driver, R. (1987). Beyond processes. Studies in Science Education, 14(9), 33–62.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National

Academic Press.

Perkins, D.N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher,

18(1), 16–25.

Rumelhart, D.E., & Norman, D.A. (1981). Analogical processes in learning. In J.R. Anderson

(Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 335–358). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sadler, T.D., Chambers, W.F., & Zeidler, D. (2002, April). Investigating the crossroads of socioscientific

issues, the nature of science, and critical thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific

decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.

Transfer of Nature of Science Understandings 23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

Spector, B., Strong, P., & La Porta, T. (1998). Teaching the nature of science as an element of

science, technology and society. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science and science edu-

cation: Rationales and strategies (pp. 267–276). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Walker, K.A., & Zeidler, D.L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through

scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387–1410.

Woods, D.R. (1996). Teaching thinking, problem solving, transference, and the context. Journal of

College Science Teaching, 26(1), 74–76.

Zeidler, D.L. (Ed.). (2003). The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science

education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

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.

Zohar, A. (1996). Transfer and retention of reasoning skills taught in biological contexts. Research in

Science and Technological Education, 14, 205–209.

Appendix 1. Sample Questions Addressing NOS Aspects

1- Based on your role, what did you base your conclusion on?

2- What evidence was used by the different figures to reach their decisions about the

topic?

3- How can you explain that you and your friends reached different conclusions even

though you were all looking at the same data?

4- How is this similar to what scientists do? Explain your response.

5- Do you think that the scientific conclusions about the use of the human embryos for

treating Parkinson Disease might change in the future? Explain your response.

6- What might make scientists change their conclusions?

Appendix 2. Controversial Socioscientific Issues Questionnaire (CSI)

Scenario I

Scientists in the United Kingdom have developed a new genetically modified strain of

“golden rice” to deal with Vitamin A deficiency. The genetically modified rice plants

contain two extra genes.

One group of scientists believe that eating the genetically modified rice with the two

extra genes can help prevent blindness by improving vitamin A intake during diges-

tion. As a result, this could help reduce childhood blindness, which affects 500,000

children worldwide each year especially in developing countries in Asia. This group

argues that no studies have indicated any dangers associated with genetically modified

foods.

Another group of scientists argue that we do not know how eating genetically modified

rice (or any food) will affect us. There is no biochemical analysis of the golden rice to

see how adding two genes may have changed the plant as a whole. Additionally, this

group is concerned that the new rice is grown in the same regions as other rice so there

might be crossing over (contamination), which would change the genetic material of

24 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

other rice. So these scientists argue that a healthily balanced diet would be a better

solution than the golden rice to deal with the Vitamin A deficiency.

(a) As a scientist, do you think the golden rice should be produced and marketed?

YES NO MAYBE

(b) Explain and justify your decision

(c) How can you explain that scientists reached different conclusions even though

they were all looking at the same data about genetically modified rice?

(d) Do you think the knowledge about genetically modified food might change in the

future? Explain why or why not.

(e) As a scientist, do you think you might change your decision in the future? Explain

why or why not

(f) Is there anything else you would want to know about this issue that might help

you decide or even change your decision?

Scenario II

The fluoridation of water involves adding Fluoride to public drinking water. This

issue is controversial and has been the cause for many court cases.

The group in favor of water fluoridation considers fluoridation as a safe and inexpen-

sive way to prevent tooth decay for all citizens during their lifetime. They point out

that many distinguished national and international scientific organizations support

fluoridation. Further, this group argues that scientific research shows that water flu-

oridation reduces tooth decay and cavities and prevents dental disease.

The group against fluoridation considers it unethical because it is a form of involun-

tary medication; it violates people’s rights as they have no choice. They also point out

that fluoridation does not have Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.

Further, this group argues that scientific research shows harmful effects of fluori-

dation, such as possible links to cancer. Furthermore, adding Fluoride to drinking

water makes it impossible to know how much Fluoride a person takes.

Your city plans on adding Fluoride to drinking water and requires residents to vote for

or against this issue. If they get enough votes, then water fluoridation will be effective

for the next five years.

(a) As a scientist, would you vote for adding Fluoride to drinking water in your city?

YES NO MAYBE

(b) Explain and justify your decision.

(c) How can you explain that scientists reached different conclusions even though

scientists were all looking at the same data about the effects of water

fluoridation?

Transfer of Nature of Science Understandings 25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12

(d) Do you think the knowledge about water fluoridation might change in the future?

Explain why or why not.

(e) As a scientist, do you think you might change your decision in the future? Explain

why or why not

(f) Is there anything else you would want to know about this issue that might help

you decide or even change your decision?

26 R. Khishfe

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

eric

an U

nive

rsity

of

Bei

rut]

at 0

4:42

19

Apr

il 20

12