Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions of Science Theories: An Action Research Study

doi:10.4236/ce.2013.41011

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Creative Education

2013. Vol.4, No.1, 82-88

Published Online January 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.41011

Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions of Science Theories: An Action

Research Study

James P. Concannon1, Patrick L. Brown2, Erikka Brown3

1Westminster College, Fulton, USA

2DuBray Middle Scho ol, St. Peters, USA

3Westminster College, Fulton, USA

Email: [email protected]

Received November 7th, 2012 ; revised December 10th, 2012; accepted December 24th, 2012

This study investigates prospective teachers’ conceptions of science theories before and after instruction.

Instruction focused specifically on prospective teachers’ misconceptions that theories are not used to pre-

dict, that laws are more important than theories, and that theories are simply hunches. The action research

investigation was successful in helping students accommodate new information presented in the lesson

and facilitated their understanding towards the accepted explanation of what a theory in science means;

however, the vernacular misconception that “theories are hunches” persisted.

Keywords: Nature of Science; Theory; Prospective Teachers; Science Misconceptions

Introduction

The objective for K-12 science education as outlined in the

Benchmarks for Science Literacy (American Association for the

Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993) and the National Sci-

ence Education Standards (National Research Council [NRC],

1996) is that students gain a broad understanding of science

content and develop abilities to use evidence-based reasoning in

their everyday lives. Although achieving higher levels of scien-

tific literacy is the ultimate goal, research consistently demon-

strates that students’ inaccurate ideas and misconceptions hin-

der their abilities to develop more scientifically accurate con-

ceptions (Driver, Leach, Millar, & Scott, 1996; Driver, Squires,

Rushworth, & Wood-Robinson, 1994). One key component in

helping students overcome misconceptions and achieve higher

levels of science literacy is how they are taught (Brophy &

Good, 1986). As a result, preparing prospective science teach-

ers to teach in ways that help students overcome misconcep-

tions is a major goal of many teacher education programs

(Lemberger, Hewson, & Park, 1999; Russell & Martin, 2007).

The knowledge prospective teachers have about the content and

their students influences what they will learn from teacher

preparation programs, the way they will teach, and what stu-

dents will learn. This idea grounds the purpose for this study.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of

explicit instruction on prospective science teacher’s develop-

ment of knowledge of scientific theories.

Theoretical Framework

In order to understand prospective science teacher’s

development of knowledge of scientific theories, researches

must identify important co mponents of knowledge development.

Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog (1982) proposed a model of

conceptual change that included 4 sequential phases. In the first

phase, the teacher identifies student’s ideas, knowledge, and

misconceptions. The literature documented that students have

multiple types of misconceptions ranging from preconceived

notions, conceptual misunderstandings, to vernacular miscon-

ceptions (Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering

Education [CSMEE], 1997). Misconceptions inhibit students’

learning and progression from being nominally scientifically

literate to being functionally, conceptually, or multidimensional

literate (Bybee et al., 2008). Thus, it is important that student

thinking is made concrete for both the student and teacher at the

onset of science instruction. During the second phase, the

teacher provides experiences and data to introduce new,

accurate ideas. Students benefit from firsthand experiences with

evidence in order to find new ideas plausible. The third phase

students must find new conceptions more attractive than their

misconception. Students should generate scientific claims based

on evidence and teachers should discuss ideas in light of

students’ firsthand experiences. Finally, students must use

evidence-based reasoning and logic to develop deep con-

ceptually accurate understanding. Constructing new ideas

through interactions with data and evidence, collaborations with

other students, and discussions with the teacher should help

them refute the accuracy of their misconception. Students

benefit from elaborations that allow them to test new con-

ceptions in new and different contexts. Testing ideas in new

contexts help solidify students’ knowledge by resolving con-

flicts between prior conceptions and new understanding. The

proven effectiveness of a conceptual change approach on the

development of scientific knowledge is well substantiated. A

number of studies have contributed to the development, imple-

mentation, and demonstrate the robustness of using a con-

ceptual change approach to help students overcome miscon-

ceptions to develop more accurate understanding (Eaton,

Anderson, & Smith, 1983; Clement, Brown, & Zietsman, 1989;

Nussbaum & Novick, 1981; Posner et al., 1982; Osborne &

Gilbert, 1980).

Review of the Literature: Teachers Views of the

Nature of Science

One of the central goals identified by the National Science

J. P. CONCANNON ET AL.

Education Standards (NSES) is that students should understand

the nature of science and the tenets of science (NRC, 1996).

However, studies at both the K-12 level (Liu & Lederman,

2002) and in college science courses (Kurdziel & Libarkin,

2002) indicate that students are far from achieving this goal.

The seven tenets of science describes science as tentative, em-

pirically based, subjective, based on human inference, requires

imagination and creativity, and is socially culturally embedded

(Abd-El-Khalick et al., 1998; Liu & Lederman, 2002). De-

spairingly, a number of studies document that teachers and

prospective teachers—those who are expected to have an un-

derstanding of these tenets—fail to have mature views (Abd-

El-Khalick & Akerson, 2004). There is a large body of research

that indicates that to be effective, NOS instruction should be

explicit (Gess-Newsome, 2002; Scharmann & Smith, 2001;

Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick, & Lederman, 2000; Smith &

Scharmann, 1999), reflective (Akerson et al., 2000), and taught

within an existing meaningful and relevant context (Abd-El-

Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Akerson et al., 2000). The studies

that follow demonstrate that in spite of explicit and meaningful

instruction, teachers’ development of accurate views of NOS is

mixed.

Murcia and Schibeci (1999) investigated 73 individuals’

perceptions of science using a questionnaire about an article

regarding health and alcohol consumption. One question asked:

“Those who indulged in alcohol once a week were more likely

to suffer serious illnesses or die. Do you think this statement is

scientific fact (Italics in original, p. 1128)?” The purpose of

this question was to determine if prospective teachers believed

scientific fact could stem from one single study. Only 29% of

prospective teachers indicated that there would need to be fur-

ther studies to validate the statement. In addition, prospective

teachers were asked a series of true/false questions pertaining to

various aspects of science. Another question focused specifi-

cally on what a scientific theory is: “Scientific theories should

explain additional observations that were not used in develop-

ing the theories in the first place” (p. 1134). Less than half

(45%) of the prospective teachers could identify that theories

have explanatory power that go beyond the direct observations

used to generate theory.

In another study of prospective elementary teachers, Coch-

rane (2003) examined 15 individuals views of science before

and after nature of science instruction. Cochrane reported that

prospective teachers had naïve views of theories and laws prior

to instruction. Prospective elementary teachers’ believed that

scientific theories could not change, or that scientific theories

generally do not change. One student wrote, “A law is when it

(a theory) has been tested many times and has been proven. It is

the answer” (p. 4). Prospective teachers indicate beliefs that

theories are static, never changing, and the idea that a theory

can turn into a law .

Lederman (1999) researched how five secondary biology

teachers’ understandings of the nature of science influenced

their classroom practices. The secondary biology teachers came

from diverse backgrounds and years they had been teaching

science. All five had previously had courses or workshops that

emphasized the nature of science and were considered to have

an advanced understanding of the meanings scientific theory

and law. Though all the teachers had a firm understanding of

the nature of science, only two teachers’ classroom practices

aligned with their views of science. These two teachers were

the more experienced of the five. Their intention was not to

teach the nature of science; rather, they were using a teaching

style that would motivate, promote success, and create positive

attitudes about science. Reviewing the teachers’ lesson plans,

the teaching of the nature of science through demonstrations

and inquiry-oriented lessons was not an intended outcome.

When the researcher asked questions about theories and laws to

students in the teachers’ courses, students replied with naïve

views: “Anyone can have a theory, but with evidence it eventu-

ally turns into a law because we now know it’s the

case,” ··· “Theories change all the time, but laws come out the

same way all the time and so we know they are right” (p. 926).

In this respect, students believed that scientific theories were

premature laws, laws are definite and true, and that theories are

simply ide a s .

Kurdziel and Libarkin (2002) examined non-science majors’

views of the nature of science in introductory geology courses

across three institutions. The researchers used a quantitative

instrument developed by McComas et al. (2001) to assess 73

students’ understandings of the empirical, tentative, creative,

and subjective nature of science before and after instruction. In

addition, the researchers administered the VNOS questionnaire

(Abd-El-Khalick et al., 1998) before and after instruction. Stu-

dents held naïve ideas regarding the empirical nature and tenta-

tiveness of science. Participants believed scientists solve prob-

lems and develop answers that will never change, science dis-

covers truth, science produces facts, and theories can change if

scientists change their minds (Kurdziel & Libarkin, 2002).

This study addresses important gaps in the literature con-

cerning teachers’ knowledge of NOS. Although prior research

reveals inadequacies in prospective teachers’ knowledge of

NOS, no literature has examined misconception about scientific

theories and the use of a conceptual change approach for de-

veloping knowledge. Moreover, no studies investigate prospec-

tive teachers pursuing different certifications development of

NOS knowledge using a conceptual change approach. Indeed,

little research exists that investigates what prospective teachers

learn during teacher preparation programs (Russell & Martin,

2007). Thus, studies are needed that better understand the mis-

conceptions that a prospective teacher have at the onset of a

teacher preparation course and identifies whether a conceptual

change approach influences their development of knowledge.

Research Questions

Two research questions guide this study: 1) What are mis-

conceptions about scientific theories among my prospective

science teachers? and 2) What specific strategies address pro-

spective teachers’ misconceptions about scientific theories and

promote conceptual change?

Research Context

In this section, the research context, data collection strategies,

and conceptual change approach used with prospective teachers

are described.

Context

The sample consisted of 35 prospective teachers at a small

liberal arts institution. All prospective teachers were enrolled in

an Elementary and Middle School Methods of Teaching Science

course or a Secondary Methods of Teaching Science course.

The teachers in this study were purposefully selected because

J. P. CONCANNON ET AL.

prospective they had not been previously exposed to explicit

instruction on nature of science concepts (Abd-El-Khalick &

Akerson, 2004). The majority of the elementary and middle

level prospective teachers (88%) had only one college science

course prior to taking the survey. All prospective teachers in the

Methods of Teaching Secondary Science courses had at least

three college level science courses; many had taken more than

five. The Methods of Teaching Science courses are junior level

courses required for all individuals who wish to apply for an

elementary, middle school, or secondary teaching certification.

Individuals in these courses must have been previously admit-

ted to the college’s teacher education program. All students in

the teacher education program must maintain no less than a 3.0

grade point average.

Data Collection

Every fall semester, Methods of Teaching Elementary and

Middle School Science and Methods of Teaching Secondary

Science are offered. Generally, seven to fifteen students are

enrolled in these courses. To obtain an adequate sample for an

analysis, data was collected for four consecutive years. The

prospective teachers signed an informed consent document

explaining that their participation was on a voluntary basis, and

that their lack of participation would not affect their course

grade. Prospective teachers completed the survey at the begin-

ning of the course, and prospective were given as much time as

they needed to finish (See Table 1). The prospective teachers

did not discuss ideas/answers while the assessment wa s admin-

istered. Students finished the assessment within a fifteen minute

time block. At no time prior to the assessment did the re-

searcher explicitly mention the nature of scientific theories.

Instructio nal Interven tion: Concep t u al Change

Approach

The method of instruction was design ed using Posne r et al.’s

(1982) conceptual change model. Posner et al. (1982) explains

that in order for an individual to dismiss a prior incorrect idea, a

Table 1.

Pre-assessment of teachers’ knowledge of scientific theories1.

Put an X next to the statements you thin k best apply to scientific theories.

_____A Theories includ e observati ons.

_____B T heories are “h unches” scientists ha v e.

_____C Theories can include personal beliefs or opinio n s.

_____D Theories have been tested many tim es.

_____E Theories are incomplete, temporary ideas.

_____F A the or y never changes.

_____G Theories are i n ferred expla nations, strongly supported by evidence.

_____H A s cientific la w has been p ro ven and a theory has not.

_____I The ori es are u sed to make predictions.

_____J Laws are more important to science than theories.

Examine the statements you checked off. Describe what a theory in science

means to you.

Note: 1From Keeley, Eberle, and Dorsey’s (2008) Student Ideas in Science: An-

other 25 Formative Assessment Probes, p. 83).

better conception must be introduced and accepted the new

conception must be intelligible, plausible, and fruitful. This

means the new conception must make sense, that it is plausibly

true, and that it can be used to solve problems. Students must

first be aware of their understanding of the content and then

become dissatisfied with their own ideas. In order to create

dissatisfaction in students’ initial responses, I provided a con-

crete example of scientific theories, that being the heliocentric

and geocentric theories, for students to explore.

After engaging the class in the pre-assessment, I explained

that we were going to concentrate on the meaning of scientific

theories. To explore this idea, the class watched a segment of a

video from a CBS Science Special titled 400 Years of the Tele-

scope. Before the video, I passed out a question and answer

sheet. The question and answer sheet included these questions:

Before the invention of the telescope, how was the cosmos

described? What was the name of this theory? Who was given

credit for this theory? After the invention of the telescope, what

evidence was Galileo able to collect that supported an alterna-

tive, less accepted theory? Whose was given credit for this

“alternative” theory? What theory is used today to describe our

solar syste m?

The video described how advances in the telescope allowed

scientists to answer questions about our cosmos. Prior to Gali-

leo and Copernicus, the Claudius Ptolemy’s geocentric expla-

nation of the universe did a good job of predicting the position

of planets and stars. The Ptolemaic model was capable of pre-

dicting because it was developed by close observation of the

night sky; however, it was complicated. Copernicus challenged

the Ptolemaic model by putting the sun in the center of the solar

system in attempts to rid the expansive complexity of predict-

ing positions of planets and stars.

The video explained how Copernicus’s ideas were not ac-

cepted, but scientists made use of his tables because it was sim-

pler than the required Ptolemaic calculations. It was not until

Galileo’s use of his telescope, whereby he observed Saturn’s

phases and Jupiter’s moons, that evidence for the Copernican

model came about. Galileo believed in the Copernican model,

but was banned from speaking of such heretical ideas.

After the video, I asked the students to reflect on the video.

Why was the Ptolemaic model, even though incorrect, still

described as a theory? How does a model describing our world

become coined as a theory? Was the geocentric theory based on

observations? What evidence did Galileo provide to support the

Copernican Model? Was the Copernican Model an incomplete

idea or a hunch? Was the Copernican Model based on observa-

tions? In addition to addressing these questions, I also ad-

dressed the differences between theory and law. Keeping

aligned with the same content, I described Newton’s Law of

Gravity and Einstein’s Gravitational Theory. While Newton

was capable of calculating observable phenomena using his

Law of Gravity, he did not attempt to explain why gravity oc-

curs between two masses. It was not until Einstein’s research

that we understood why gravitational forces between masses

occur. Like the Copernican model, Einstein explained why

phenomena that we observe occur. It was a simple yet genius

explanation tying together evidence that had been collected

over hundreds of years. Then the class discussed and debated

their answers. Eventually, after much deliberation and discus-

sion, I provided the scientifically accepted definition of a theory

in science and I described the differences between a theory and

a law. Students were asked to consider this definition of theory

J. P. CONCANNON ET AL.

to their original definition of theory.

Subsequent to instruction, I asked the prospective teachers to

look at their responses on their surveys. In this metacognitive

activity, I asked them to think about their responses and to

change anything they would like before turning in. To ensure I

did not get the pre-assessment answers and the post-assessment

answers mixed up, I had them “X” for the pre-assessment and a

check for the post-assessment. I asked the students not to cross

out their pre-assessment answers; rather, just put a check to the

left of where the “X’s” were.

Findings

In this section, data is presented regarding prospective teach-

ers’ prior knowledge of scientific theories and knowledge after

instruction.

Pre-Assessment

Six (17.1%) of the prospective teachers checked all items A,

D, G, and I without checking any other items. 11.4% of pro-

spective teachers checked a combination of correct items A, D,

G, or I without checking incorrect items. The most frequently

missed items were H (42.5% checked) “A scientific law has

been proven and a theory has not” and item A (40% not

checked) “Theories include observations”, followed by I, B, D

and C (Table 2). Of these items, A, D, and I should have been

checked but were not. Likewise, items H, B, and C should not

have been checked, but were. Besides item A for items that

should have been checked, a high percentage (40%) of prospec-

tive teachers missed item I, “Theories can be used to make

predictions,” and 36% of prospective teachers missed item D,

“Theories have been tested several times”. Item H, “A scientific

law has been proven and a theory has not”, had the highest

percentage incorrect (36%) for all items that should not have

been checked but were. The same percentage (28%) of students

checked items B, “Theories are ‘hunches’ scientists have”, and

C, “Theories can include personal beliefs and opinions”.

Prior to instruction, prospective teachers responded to the

statement, “Examine the statements you checked off. Describe

what a theory means to you” (Keeley et al., 2008: p. 83). Writ-

ten responses indicated that prospective teachers had a better

understanding of scientific theory than the initial analysis of the

checked items (Table 3).

Based on the written responses, several prospective teachers

had a correct understanding of the meaning of scientific theo-

ries. A total of 15 students had similar written responses as

Secondary Science Student 1 (Table 3). Of these 15 prospec-

tive teachers, the most frequently incorrect responses on the

checked item s were items A and I (26.6% incorrect).

Similar to Elementary Science Students 1 and 3 (Table 3); a

total of 10 prospective teachers had the misconception that

scientific theories are not proven while laws are proven. These

prospective teachers also think that laws are proven and theo-

ries are not yet proven. The second most frequent misconcep-

tion revealed from the written responses pertained to students’

confusion between the meaning of theory and hypothesis. Nine

students used the term theory in their written explanation, but

were actually describing a hypothesis (Elementary Science

Student 2; Table 3).

Summary of Prospective Teachers Conceptions Prior

to Instruction

In addressing the purpose of this study, items H, B, A, I, and

D were determined to be the most concerning items (Table 4).

While many prospective teachers understood the meaning of

scientific theories, a significant number of prospective teachers

Table 2.

Percentage of students wh o responded incorrectly by item.

Items A B C D E F G H I J

Checked 21

12 11 24 9 2

30 15 22 4

Notchecked 14 23 24 11 26 33 5 20 13 31

% Incorrect 40% 34.2% 31.4% 31.4% 25.7% 3.5% 14.2% 42.8% 37.1% 11.4%

Table 3.

Written responses t o s t u d e nt s d e s c ribing what a theory in science means to them.

Secondary Science Student 1—Student had taken more than five c ol lege scien ce courses—A ns wered the survey correctly fo r all items: “A scientific theory

is an inferred explanation created after studying a phenomenon. It is strongl y supported by evidence and observation and can be used to make predictions.

All theories have been tested many times.”

Secondary Science Student 2—Student had taken more than three college sc ience courses—Answered the surve y correctly except for one item (H): “A

theory is a hypothes is that has been thorough l y tested. A theory provides the best explanation, which is supporte d by strong evidence.”

Secondary Science Student 3—Student had taken more than three college sc ience courses—Answered the surve y correctly except for two items (I and J): “A

theory in scien ce is a well-supported idea that, even though proven right multiple times, has the ability to be proven wrong.”

Elementary Scienc e S t udent 1—Student had taken one c oll ege scien ce course—Answered all items c orr ectly except two (H and I): “A scientific theory is an

attempt to explain observed phenomena based on well-documented research. However, unlike a law, a theory is not proven.”

Elementary Scienc e S t udent 2—Student had taken one c oll ege scien ce course—Answered t h ree items incorrectl y (B, C, J): “A theory is something that a

scientist believes. He would test it by doing experi ments to test his theory.”

Elementary Science St udent 3—Student had taken one college science course—Answered fi ve items inc orrectly (A, B, D, E, and H): “A theory is a hunch

that scientists have that are incomplete and temporary ideas using evidence to try to support ideas.”

Elementary Science St udent 4—Student had taken one college science course—Answered fo ur items inc orrectly (A, C, H, and I ): “Theories are scientific

ideas that have been tested. They continue to be tested and if they pass all t hey tests they are then a scientific law.”

J. P. CONCANNON ET AL.

used the word theory synonymous to hypothesis, or thinking

that a scientific law is proven while a theory is not. In addition,

prospective teachers would enter their own classrooms thinking

not understanding that a theory is based upon observations,

theories can be used to make predictions, and theories have

been tested several t imes.

Differences in Prospective Teachers’ Conceptions

before and after Instruction

Specific surveys with high frequency of incorrect responses

were removed from the data set and further analyzed to deter-

mine if explicit instruction regarding the meaning of scientific

theories had any effect on students’ former conceptions. Over-

all, prospective teachers’ missed fewer items on the post-as-

sessment compared to the pre-assessment; however, miscon-

ceptions remained (Table 5). Despite explicitly teaching to the

assessment, the misconception that a theory is a “hunch” per-

sisted at a higher frequency than expected. Of the students with

a significantly high number of incorrect ideas, this was the one

misconception that persisted. In fact, upon collecting the sur-

veys, a student explained to me that despite the explicit expla-

nation of a scientific theory, he insisted on checking item B:

Theories are “hunches” scientists have.

Two students participated in an additional brief post-instruc-

tion interview relating to theories in science. Student #1 is an

early childhood and elementary education major intending to go

onto graduate school upon finishing her degree. She took earth

science, psychology, biology, physics, and chemistry courses in

high school in addition to seven college science courses. Stu-

dent #1 did not receive the aforementioned instruction as stu-

dent #2. Student #1 was simply given the pre-assessment, re-

sponded to the pre-assessment, and then explicitly told the cor-

rect answers to the pre-assessment. Student #2 is a secondary

education major with emphasis in biology. Student #2 had pre-

viously taken seven high school science courses (Earth Science,

Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Anatomy, Botany and Zoology)

and seven college science courses. Student two was taught us-

ing a conceptual change model of instruction and then explic-

itly asked to consider his ideas of science theories before and

after instruction. Here are the students’ responses to the fol-

lowing questions after instruction:

1) Please explain what a “scientific theory” is. What does it

mean?

Student #1: “A Scientific theory is a group of ideas/hunches

about a specific area that needs to be tested in order to be

Table 4.

Rank order of prospective teachers’ incorrect ideas of scientific theories.

Item

H: A scientific law has been proven

and a theory has not (should not ha ve

been checked).

Highest frequency of incorrect responses for i t ems that sho uld not have b een checked; For individuals wh o

responded correctly to item G (the b est answer i f j ust picking one item), this item had the highest frequency of

being incorrectly checked; Result is supported by prospective teachers’ incorrect responses to the short answer at

the end of the instrument.

A: Theories include observations

(should have been checked). Item with the highest frequency of in correct responses for items th at should have been che cked: Result c ou ld be

due to prospective teachers picking item G rather than item A.

I: Theories are used to make predictions

(should have been checked). Item with the second highest frequency of incorrect responses for items that should have been checked: Result

could be due to prospective teachers picking item G rather than item I.

B: Theories are “hunches” scientists have

(should not have been checked).

Second highest frequency of incorrect re s po nses for a l l it ems that s ho u ld not ha v e been checked; fourth highest

frequency of incorrect respon s es for all items (checked or not checked); Result is supported by prospective

teachers’ incorrect responses to the short answer at the end of the instrument.

Table 5.

Pre- and post-conceptions of science theories.

Student # Pre-assessment misconceptions Post-assessment misconceptions

1 Believed th eories are “ hu n ches”; t heories can include

personal beliefs; and laws are more important than theories

Student no longer believed theories included personal beliefs o r that laws are

more important than theories; however, maintained that theories are

“hunches.”

2 Believed th at theories are “hunches”; theor i es can include

personal beliefs; and that a scientific law is proven while a

theory is not.

Student no lon ger held the idea that a scientific law has been proven and a

theory has not; however , s t i l l maintained that theories are “hunches” and can

include personal beliefs.

3 Believed th at theories are “hunches”; and that a scientific

law is proven while a theory is not. Both misconc eptions not pre sent.

4 Believed th at theories are “hunches”; theor i es can include

personal be l iefs; and theories are i ncomplete ideas.

Student no longe r believed theories can include personal beliefs; howeve r,

student still believed tha t t heories are “hunches” and that theories are

incomplete ideas.

5 Believed th at theories are “hunches”; theor i es can include

personal beliefs; theories are incomplete ideas, and that a

scientific law has been proven while a theory has not.

Student no longer thought theories are incomplete ideas or that a law has been

proven while a theory has not. Student maintained the ideas that theories are

“hunches” and that scientific theories can include pe r sonal beliefs.

6 Believed t h at laws are more importa n t than theori es. Misconception not present.

7 Believed th at theories are “hunches”; theor i es can include

personal beliefs; theories are incomplete ideas, and that a

scientific law has been proven while a theory has not.

Student no longer believ ed that theories are incomplete ideas, or that a

scientific law has been pr oven and a theory has not. S tudent maint ained the

idea that theories are “hunches” s cientists have and that theorie s can include

personal beliefs or o pi nions.

J. P. CONCANNON ET AL.

proven, until then it remains a hypothesis/guess.”

Student #2: “A scientific theory is a statement pertaining

about a phenomenon supported by evidence and observations.

2) Please explain what a “scientific theory” is. What does it

mean?

Student #1: “A Scientific theory is a group of ideas/hunches

about a specific area that needs to be tested in order to be

proven, until then it remains a hypothesis/guess.”

Student #2: “A scientific theory is a statement pertaining

about a phenomenon supported by evidence and observations.

3) Can you think of any examples of theories in science? If

so, please list.

Student #1 “Theory of Evolution-interesting to “prove” that

one. Theory of Relativity”

Student #2 “The theory of gravity, relativity, evolution, and

electronegativity.”

4) If someone were to explain to you that a theory in science

is “just a hunch”, would you agree or disagree with them? Why

or why not?

Student #1: “I would disagree because a theory should be

based on prior research and LOADS of it. It combines many

ideas and research into a very direct guess that needs to be

tested. Anyone can have a guess/hunch but you would need

mass amounts of research to propose a theory.”

Student #2: “I would disagree with them, because a hunch is

not a theory.”

Discussions and Conclusion

This study confirmed that students are leaving high school

with misconceptions about the nature of scientific theories, and

these misconceptions persist into their college years of educa-

tion (Kurdziel & Libarkin, 2002; Liu & Lederman, 2002). For

many prospective teachers, misconceptions result from the way

“theory” is used in everyday contexts versus and the way “the-

ory” is meant in the science community. In this study, the pri-

mary misconceptions about theories in science prior to instruct-

tion were: 1) a scientific law has been proven and a theory has

not; 2) theories do not include observations; 3) theories cannot

be used to make predictions; and 4) theories are “hunches”

scientists have.

Many studies have been carried out in primary, middle, and

secondary methods courses on prospective teachers’ knowledge

of NOS (Cochrane, 2003; Murcia & Schibeci, 1999). How-

ever, few studies investigate the development of knowledge for

NOS for prospective teachers pursuing teacher certification at

different levels (e.g., primary, middle, and secondary). Regard-

less of the type of certification the prospective teachers in this

study were pursuing, they all had varying preconceptions of

NOS topics and the meaning of “scientific theory.” After in-

struction, these prospective teachers developed more accurate

views of NOS and “scientific theories” while retaining some

naïve conceptions. The main findings of this study indicate: 1)

as a result of the conceptual change approach, many of stu-

dents’ incorrect ideas about science theories no longer existed;

2) students who did not receive instruction maintained incorrect

ideas; 3) the instruction did not increase the number of incorrect

responses; and 4) a student who received explicit direct instruc-

tion had less understanding of science theories compared to one

who participated in a lesson designed to create a conceptual

change experience about science theories, and then have an

explicit conversation regarding students’ former and current

ideas of science theories. Overall, explicit instruction of science

theories decreased the number of incorrect ideas students held.

However, the idea that theories are “hunches” persisted, espe-

cially for students who had several incorrect ideas about theo-

ries in science.

The instruction that was implemented in this study focused

on conceptual change; that is, trying to create a classroom en-

vironment whereby students have to recognize their incorrect

ideas and actively seek a better understanding of the concept.

For conceptual change to occur, students had to first recognize

that their ideas were incorrect. This was accomplished in the

instructional process by exemplifying a historical account of

how theories developed, how theories are used, and how old

theories are set aside. Students must think about their own per-

ceptions of theories, how evidence is used to support theories,

how theories are used to make predictions, and how theories are

more than hunches. Explicit instruction coupled with the con-

ceptual change approach made positive impacts on students’

understandings of the meaning of science theories. Thus, this

study contributes to the literature on effective prospective

teacher preparation by illustrating that NOS related content can

be taught through a conceptual change approach to help K-12

prospective teachers develop knowledge. In addition, this study

revealed that the effectiveness of explicit instruction of NOS

related content is dependent upon the approach by which the

content is delivered.

Implications

In light that this study was performed using college-aged

students who had multiple incorrect preconceptions of the

meaning of science theories, and the understanding of science

theories is present in the National Science Education Standards

(1996), it is assumed that K-12 teachers need to do a better job

addressing students’ misconceptions of theories before, during,

and after teaching science content. This can be accomplished by

K-12 teacher fusing the history of science into the teaching of

science content. The results of the study indicate that while

explicit instruction using a conceptual change approach was

effective in addressing students’ misconceptions about theories

in science, this study revealed addressing students’ mis-

conceptions about science theories cannot be accomplished in

one lesson. A teacher cannot assume that using research-based,

sound instruction for one class period can address students’

misconceptions about a topic. To truly address students’ mis-

conceptions about scientific theories, teacher educators should

integrate the history of science and nature of science,

specifically the meaning of science theories in this case,

whenever possible and use a conceptual change approach. This

should be done frequently and consistently. Teachers should

place relevant science content in a social and historical context.

The history of science should be used to exemplify how the

science community has come to understand science content,

and that theories in science are a result of evidence, not

“hunches.” Effective models of teacher preparation should

explicitly focuses on a conceptual change approach and link

teachers developing knowledge with strategies that can be used

to help promote students conceptual change.

More studies are necessary that identify whether teachers

who develop knowledge of NOS through a conceptual change

approach design during teacher preparation and implement

NOS and conceptual change approach with students. Learning

J. P. CONCANNON ET AL.

from experience can be a valuable for prospective teachers and

create drastic changes in their practice (Russell & Martin, 2007).

Thus, longitudinal studies are needed to better understand the

gap between theory and practice. In this regard, studies are

needed that and bridge what we know how prospective teachers

learn to become effective beginning teachers both in terms of

NOS and using a conceptual change approach. Such studies

would lend valuable insight into the factors that facilitate and

constrain teacher’s ability to use a conceptual change approach

and teach NOS with students.

In conclusion, research on knowledge development of NOS

during teacher education courses has the potential to redesign

how prospective teachers are prepared when pursuing different

certifications. Like students leaving high school with miscon-

ceptions about scientific theories and laws, prospective teachers

have similar inaccurate ideas. These misconceptions result from

the way “theory” is used in an everyday context versus and the

way “theory” is meant in the science community. To develop

more accurate views of NOS, a conceptual change approach

can help prospective teachers become dissatisfied with their

misconceptions and accept more accurate views. If teachers

develop a deeper understanding of both scientific knowledge

and the pedagogical effectiveness of a conceptual change ap-

proach, profound differences might occur in K-12 students

understanding of scientific and theories and NOS.

REFERENCES

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature

of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural.

Science Education, 82, 417-436.

doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199807)82:4<417::AID-SCE1>3.0.C

O;2-E

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning as conceptual

change: Factors mediating the development of preservice elementary

teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88, 785-810.

doi:10.1002/sce.10143

Abd-el-Khalik, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwarz, R. S. (2002). Views of na-

ture of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assess-

ment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Re-

search in Science Teaching, 39, 497-521. doi:10.1002/tea.10034

Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influ-

ence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary

teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 37, 295-317.

doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200004)37:4<295::AID-TEA2>3.0.C

O;2-2

Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achieve-

ment. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching

(3rd ed.). New York: McMillan.

Bybee, R. W., Powell, J. C., & Trowbridge, L. W. (2008). Teaching

secondary school science (9th ed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson Prentice

Hall.

Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education (CSMEE).

(1997). Science teaching reconsidered: A handbook. Washington DC:

National Academies Press.

Clement, J., Brown, D. E., & Zietsman, A. (1989). Not all preconcep-

tions are misconceptions: finding “anchoring” conceptions’ for

grounding instruction on students’ intuitions. International Journal

of Science Education, 11, 554-565. doi:10.1080/0950069890110507

Cochrane, B. (2003). Developing pre-service elementary teachers’

views of the nature of science (NOS): Examining the effectiveness of

intervention types. Annual Meeting of the Association for the Educa-

tion of Teachers of Science, St. Louis, MO: The Association for the

Education of Teachers of Science.

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s

images of science. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994).

Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas.

New York: Routledge Falmer.

Eaton, J. F., Anderson, C. W., & Smith, E. L. (1983). When students

don’t know they don’t know . Science and Children, 20, 7-9.

Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). The use and impact of explicit instruction

about the nature of science and science inquiry in and elementary

science methods course. Science & Education, 11, 55-67.

doi:10.1023/A:1013054823482

Keeley, P., Eberle, F., & Dorsey, C. (2008). Uncovering student ideas

in science, volume 3: Another 25 formative assessment probes. Ar-

lington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.

Koenig, K., (Directo r), Koehler, D. (Produ cer), & Ingrao, A. (Assistant

Producer) (2009). 400 years of the telescope: A journey of science,

technology, and thought [television broadcast]. Red Lion, PA: Inter-

stellar Studios Production, Public Broadcasting Service.

Kurdziel, J., & Libarkin, J. (2002). Research methodologies in science

education: Students’ ideas about the nature of science. Journal of

Geoscience Education, 50, 322-329.

Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of

science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the

relationship. Jour nal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 916-929.

Lemberger, J., Hewson, P. W., & Park, H. (1999). Relationship

between prospective secondary teachers’ classroom practice and their

conceptions of biology and of teaching science. Science Education,

83, 347-371.

doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199905)83:3<347::AID-SCE5>3.0.C

O;2-Y

Liu, S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). Taiwanese gifted students’ views of

nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 102, 114-123.

doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb17905.x

McComas, W. F., Cox-Petersen, A., & Narguizian, P. (2001). The

impact of experiential science learning on participants’ understand-

ing of the nature of science. The Meeting of the National Association

for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO: Nati onal Associa-

tion for Research in Science Teaching

Murcia, K., & Schibeci, R. (1999). Primary student teachers’ concep-

tions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Edu-

cation, 21, 1123-1140. doi:10.1080/095006999290101

National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National Science Education

Standards. Wa shington DC: National Academies Press.

Nussbaum, J., & Novick, S. (1981). Brainstorming in the classroom to

invent a model: A case study. School Science Review, 62, 771-778.

Osborne, R., Gilbert, J. K. (1980). A method for investigating concept

understanding in science. European Journal of Science Education, 2,

311-321. doi:10.1080/0140528800020311

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982).

Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of con-

ceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.

doi:10.1002/sce.3730660207

Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2007). Learning to teach science. In S.

Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science

education (pp. 1151-1178). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Scharmann, L. C., & Smith, M. U. (2001). Further thoughts on defining

versus describing the nature of science: A response to Niaz. Science

Education, 85, 691- 693. doi:10.1002/sce.1033

Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing

the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers

and science educators. Science Education, 8 3 , 493-509.

doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199907)83:4<493::AID-SCE6>3.0.C

O;2-U