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: [email protected]
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
Top Related