Guerra Ramos2010 PDF

Ideas About the Nature of Science
in Pedagogically Relevant
Contexts: Insights From a
Situated Perspective of Primary
Teachers’ Knowledge
MARIA TERESA GUERRA-RAMOS

Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN-Unidad Monterrey,
Vı́a del Conocimiento 201, PIIT, C. P. 66600, Apodaca, Nuevo León, Mexico
JIM RYDER, JOHN LEACH

School of Education, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
Received 11 September 2008; revised 23 April 2009, 21 May 2009; accepted 26 May 2009
DOI 10.1002/sce.20361
Published online 7 January 2010 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
ABSTRACT: There is evidence that science teachers give naive responses to direct ques-
tions about the nature of science. However, there is also evidence that such responses
underpredict the more sophisticated knowledge that teachers may use in classroom situa-
tions. The purpose of this study was to characterize the informal ideas used by teachers in
situations directly relevant to their teaching of science. The sample comprised 50 Mexican
primary school teachers. Three areas of informal expertise were addressed: scientists and
their work; scientific inquiry; and data measurement. The teachers’ thinking was explored
through questionnaires and semistructured interviews using pedagogically relevant con-
texts. The database was analyzed first to describe ideas shared by teachers and second
to identify any recurrent themes and patterns among responses. Teachers’ responses were
characterized around four areas of discourse: demarcation of science; scientific proce-
dures; approaches to reliable knowledge; and professional and institutional features of
science. The teachers’ responses were diverse in their contextualization, that is, they in-
corporated specific background and contextual details to a different extent. Most responses
showed limited or intermediate contextualization across all four areas of discourse, though
some more sophisticated responses were noted. A general framework was developed to
characterize this diversity in teachers’ responses. This paper concludes with a discus-
sion of the extent to which this sample of teachers was equipped to discuss the nature
of science in pedagogical contexts and, given their starting points, how they might be
supported in developing their expertise in doing this. Implications for teacher education
Correspondence to: Maria Teresa Guerra-Ramos; e-mail: tguerra@cinvestav.mx

C 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
NATURE OF SCIENCE IN PEDAGOGICALLY RELEVANT CONTEXTS 283
and curriculum development are presented.

C 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 94:282 –
307, 2010
INTRODUCTION
Research suggests that many teachers’ knowledge about the nature of science is, in
some sense, naive. However, there is evidence that what teachers say about the nature of
science in response to survey instruments or open questions does not predict what they will
communicate about the nature of science in their pedagogical practice (e.g., Brickhouse,
1990; Hodson, 1993; Taylor & Dana, 2003). Furthermore, many professional scientists
express similarly naive ideas about the nature of science but demonstrate a very sound and
sophisticated understanding in their practice (e.g., Samarapungavan, Westby, & Bodner,
2006, Wong & Hodson, 2009).
Teachers’ understanding about the nature of science has been a focus of research in
recent decades (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Lederman, 1992, 2007; Schwartz
& Lederman, 2002). The methodologies followed in these studies reflect different concep-
tualizations of what it means to have an understanding of the nature of science. Teachers’
understanding has frequently been judged against abstract philosophical perspectives (e.g.,
Kimball, 1968; Kouladis & Ogborn, 1989; Palmquist & Finley, 1997), which has limited
the possibility of mapping the diversity and complexity of teachers’ understanding in peda-
gogically embedded situations. This conceptual approach has encouraged the development
of tests and scales aimed at quantifying what teachers know and verifying whether or
not what is known coincides with abstract philosophical perspectives. Other studies fol-
low the implicit assumption that teachers’ understanding about science is an articulated
type of knowledge that is stable and generalizable (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick, 2001; Leder-
man, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002; Rampal, 1992). Although these studies
have made progress in describing the content of teachers’ ideas about science, they have
offered a more limited account of the pedagogical relevance of teachers’ understanding.
More recent studies adopting a situated view of teachers’ knowledge have tended to pro-
vide a qualitative perspective and pay attention to the pedagogical setting in which such
knowledge is displayed (e.g., Nott & Wellington; 1996; Windschitl, 2004).
Research exploring teachers’ understanding has used a range of methods: standardized
questionnaires, think-aloud protocols, stimulated recall, concept maps, ethnographic ob-
servation, and case studies, among others. However, few strategies and instruments have
been reported that address how the ideas about the nature of science that people express
are influenced by the contexts in which they are elicited. In other words, we have little
knowledge of whether people express broadly similar ideas about the nature of science in
response to open questions without reference to any specific context; questions relating the
nature of science to specific content areas; or questions set in pedagogical contexts. Gen-
erally speaking, the development of scales and tests of teachers’ ideas about the nature of
science has resulted in a deficit view of teachers’ knowledge that emphasizes their apparent
lack of knowledge rather than identifying what teachers know and can do in action settings.
Furthermore, the assumption is often made that a better philosophical understanding of the
nature of science would necessarily and of itself lead to better science teaching. This deficit
view tells us very little about what we can do to support teachers to develop a stronger
understanding of the nature of science that is relevant to teaching at particular educational
levels and in response to real and specific curriculum requirements.
Most science curricula around the world incorporate some aspects of the nature of science
and consequently require teachers to develop skills to communicate them. In Mexico,
although the primary science curriculum does not have an explicit strand on the nature of
Science Education
284 GUERRA-RAMOS ET AL.
science, teachers are encouraged through curriculum materials to teach about the methods
and values of science and how scientists communicate the results of their work. This places
significant demands on the teaching force, given the fairly modest science background of
most Mexican primary teachers, and the limited opportunities provided for them to develop
knowledge about teaching about the nature of science.
Our concern with the knowledge that teachers use in practice draws upon a situated
view of human knowledge, in which knowledge is not viewed as being independent of
the context in which it is used (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave, 1988; Sternberg
& Wagner, 1994). This is an alternative to viewing knowledge as something that can be
communicated in the abstract. The term ideas about science (Bartholomew, Osborne, &
Ratcliffe, 2004; Driver, Leach, Millar, & Scott, 1996; Osborne, Collins, Ratcliffe, Millar,
& Duschl, 2003; Wolfe, 1990) is used here to refer to a profile of ideas about the nature of
science that teachers are likely to develop from messages—both implicit and explicit—in
formal science education and also exposure to science within their broader cultural context.
If knowledge about the nature of science is viewed as a profile, then learning about the
nature of science may involve both extending the range of ideas about science in the profile
and coming to use particular ideas about science in a more sophisticated, defensible way
in specific contexts (Ryder & Leach, 2008).
This paper presents a conceptual and methodological perspective on teachers’ ideas
about science that enables us to consider what teachers are likely to communicate about
the nature of science in their professional practice as science teachers. The methodological
approach used involves exploring teachers’ ideas in detail through discussion of pedagogical
situations and then analyzing how teachers elaborate their ideas. This provides insights
into the starting points from which teachers develop and build views about the nature of
science that are relevant for teaching primary science. Our analysis provides a framework
to characterize ideas about science in teachers’ discourse (Table 1). The framework is based
on the data collected in this study, as well as aspects reported in the literature. We conclude
this paper by drawing out some implications of this research for teacher education and
for the way in which teachers’ understanding of the nature of science is conceptualized in
research in science education.
METHODS
Context
Portraying science as a collective human endeavor involving the practice of values,
attitudes, and methods is a relatively recent intention in Mexican primary education. This
aim has been embodied unproblematically in the official pedagogical rhetoric contained
in educational documents and teaching materials. This implies that teachers have to make
science itself the focus of attention and to talk explicitly in the classroom about its methods,
processes, and values and how scientists communicate and share the result of their work.
Given this context, it is particularly timely to explore the baseline knowledge regarding
ideas about science that teachers have to address these curriculum demands.
Participants
Fifty teachers working in state primary schools participated in the study. This group of
teachers was not constructed as a statistically representative sample. Nevertheless, we en-
sured that teachers with a broad range of backgrounds and working contexts were included.
The teachers were drawn from 14 schools selected randomly from 228 primary schools
Science Education
TABLE 1
A General Framework to Characterize Representations of Ideas About
Science in Teachers’ Discourse
Patterns in Contextualization
Areas of Teacher
Discourse Limited Intermediate Extended
1. Demarcation • References to • Judgments made • More concrete and
of science unspecified depending on who varied examples
persons and and where; these of people and
physical spaces criteria may or places, making
involved in may not be applied distinctions
science-related systematically. between school
activities. • Detection of and professional
Assumptions that unclear purposes science.
such activities can as a starting • Clear reference to
involve anybody, point to make one or several
anywhere. distinctions on purposes in
• Vague or no scientific/ science.
reference to nonscientific- • Recognition of
purpose of related issues. several or a
science-related • Basic use of variety of fields
issues. familiar referents and areas of
• Any topic, field, or (e.g., school focus in science
area associated science, personal based on
with science without experience) to increasing number
an underlying regard fields or of contextual
argument. areas of focus as elements.
scientific or not.
2. Scientific • Anything counts as • Scientific • Scientific
procedures scientific procedures procedures as
procedures perceived as interrelated,
because of investigative in contextualized,
unspecific nature and and purposeful
resemblance to frequently actions
actions and involving single associated with
knowledge actions with scientific ideas.
regarded as unclear reference • Recognition of a
scientific-like to purposes. variety of
observation. • Scientific method methodological
Scientific ideas are as a tool of approaches
not associated with general depending on the
scientific applicability area of focus,
procedures. regardless of purpose, and
context. framing ideas.
3. Approaches • Any form of • Initial • Scientific
to reliable observation identification of observation as a
knowledge providing sources affecting systematic
information data and focus on action with a clear
regarded as the concrete purpose and
scientific. action of gathering subject to
information. validation.
(Continued)
Science Education
TABLE 1 Continued
Areas of Teacher
Discourse Limited Intermediate Extended
• Unproblematic • Initial awareness • Relevant aspects
collection of of distinctions affecting data
apparently among quality are
relevant observation with identified.
information or scientific purpose • Scientific
data; no concern and other forms of knowledge must
about its quality or observation. stand scrutiny and
connection to ideas verification.
in science.
4. Professional • Emphasis on • Something • Scientists
and personal rather special about recognized as
institutional than professional scientists is professionals
features of features of stated but unclear: with specific
science scientists. ways of work, features and
• No institutional responsibilities, commitments.
connections professional • Several and
considered or values, etc. varied
other aspects of • The existence of institutions
scientists’ scientific associated to
professional life. institutions is scientists and their
acknowledged. work.
available in Queretaro, a medium-sized city in central Mexico. The sample comprised 30

women and 20 men. Teaching experience ranged from 2 to 32 years. All teachers were
working with students aged 11 and 12 years (Grades 5 and 6). They taught science alongside
seven other subjects.
These teachers had an education background at the level of secondary school (age range =
12–15 years) and high school (age range = 16–18 years) before entering teachers colleges
and obtaining their teacher qualification. At teachers colleges, participants followed a
broad interdisciplinary training, with no particular emphasis in science, lasting 4 years
and equivalent to a university degree. Their mentors are normally graduates from teachers
colleges, not science graduates or practicing scientists. Only two teachers in our sample
completed a science major at local universities.
Development of Research Instruments

A significant characteristic of our research instruments is the use of “pedagogical sce-
narios” within a written open-ended questionnaire and follow-up semistructured interviews
(Guerra-Ramos, 2005). These instruments were developed to encourage teachers to talk
about the nature of science in ways most likely to resemble their discursive practices in
teaching. Pedagogical scenarios addressed three aspects of the nature of science: ideas
about scientists and their work; scientific inquiry; and measurement. A prior analysis of
relevant curriculum documents and textbooks in Mexico identified these as key ideas within
the curriculum (Guerra-Ramos).
Science Education
The pedagogical scenarios to which these teachers responded are summarized in the
following text.
Designing Posters About Scientists. A group of people designing science education

materials are deciding the content of a series of posters to introduce scientists to primary
school students. There are divergent proposals on which scientists to include and how to
present them. Which proposals would you support, and why? (Appendix A. Scientists.)
Preparing a Lesson About Scientific Inquiry. A teacher is preparing a lesson about

scientific inquiry and finds descriptions of several activities in a resource book. The teacher
wants to select some activities which may serve as examples of scientific inquiry for
students. Which descriptions would you select, and why? (Appendix B. Scientific inquiry.)
A Classroom Activity About Measurement. Working in groups, students measured the

distance a marble rolls on different surfaces. The measurements made by two student groups
are very different. The teacher wants to explain the reasons behind the differences in these
measurements. What would you do and say in that situation? (Appendix C. Measurement.)
Each scenario was initially piloted in written form with three teachers not involved
in the main study. Teachers were then interviewed to trial the interview agenda. Teachers’
responses and feedback helped us refine the content, wording, and layout of the instruments.
Data Collection
In the main data collection phase, each teacher completed a written questionnaire and then
took part in a follow-up semistructured interview. One of the three pedagogical scenarios,
and its corresponding questionnaire, was randomly assigned to each participant. Eighteen
teachers responded to Designing posters about scientists, 16 to Preparing a lesson about
scientific inquiry, and 16 to A classroom activity about measurement.
All participants were given the written questionnaire for completion in advance of the in-
terview. Completed questionnaires were returned to the researcher for review before holding
the interview. Teachers reported that the written questionnaire took from 25 to 55 minutes
to complete. The interview took place some 5–11 days later. Interview questions explored
preinterview written responses and encouraged teachers to articulate and extend their ideas
through follow-up questions. Our emphasis in the interviews was to encourage teachers to
articulate views about the nature of science within the context of each pedagogical scenario.
This follows from our situated perspective on such views. On occasions, as the interviews
progressed, the original pedagogical context became less evident, resulting in more decon-
textualized responses. In such cases, the interviewer encouraged the teacher to refer back to
the original pedagogical scenario. The interview agenda at the end of Appendix A provides
some examples of follow-up questions used in this way for this pedagogical scenario. All
interviews were conducted by one researcher (Guerra-Ramos) and lasted 21–35 minutes.
A full sample interview transcript can be found in Guerra-Ramos (2005).
The combination of printed stimulus material, written open-ended questions, and
semistructured interviews supported teachers in expressing their ideas as openly and fully as
possible. The interviewer also had the opportunity to prompt teachers to elaborate ideas or
clarify meanings when necessary. Although the pedagogical scenarios are related to science
teaching, we recognize that there is still a difference between teachers’ responses within
Science Education
questionnaires and interviews and the ideas they might communicate in real classroom
situations. The decision to not use naturalistic classroom observations follows from the
practical difficulty of arranging such observations and the time that this would have in-
volved. In particular, it is difficult to identify in advance when aspects related to the nature
of science would actually be taught in a particular teaching episode. However, in our view,
it is plausible that the ideas expressed by the teachers in response to the three pedagogical
scenarios provide valid insights into some of the ideas most likely to be communicated
during teaching.
The Initial Descriptive Analysis of Interview Data

Interviews from the three independent studies were audio-recorded and transcribed in full.
The qualitative data analysis package N-Vivo (QSR International, www.qsrinternational
.com) was used to support the analysis. Initially, interview transcripts were analyzed by an
ideographic–descriptive approach to answer the following research questions:
• What range of ideas about scientists and their work do teachers hold in terms of
their role/purpose, areas of interest, skills, working procedures, and, if any, other
perceived features?
• What range of ideas about scientific inquiry do teachers hold in terms of associated
actions, what it involves, its purposes, and, if any, other procedural aspects?
• What range of ideas about measurement in science activities do teachers hold in
terms of the variability/uncertainty involved and factors affecting the quality of data
or explaining differences among data?
Coding categories were derived from the data to make sense of participants’ responses in
their own terms and to describe the range of responses. Coding categories were developed
by a single coder in an iterative process. Once an initial coding scheme was produced for
each interview set, a second coder was involved in a blind-coding exercise to establish the
trustworthiness of the analysis. The second coder was provided with printouts of a subset of
three interview transcripts and the initial coding schemes. Agreements and disagreements
were computed by comparing coding decisions made by both coders to determine intercoder
reliability using the formula suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 64). This resulted
in intercoder reliability levels of .83, .73, and .90 for each of the interview sets, respectively.
Disagreements between coders were then examined, resulting in some further refinement
of coding categories.
The Overall Analysis of Interview Data

The initial descriptive analysis showed that teachers often raised similar nature of science
issues in responses to different pedagogical scenarios. This encouraged us to conduct a more
general level of analysis, providing a more comprehensive characterization of the diversity
in teachers’ ideas in terms of both what was said and how these ideas were expressed. The
questions orienting this analysis were as follows:
• Are there common themes in teachers’ responses about science and pedagogical
issues that run through the different pedagogical scenarios?
• Can distinctive forms of expressing ideas about science and pedagogical issues be
identified in the way that teachers elaborate and contextualize their ideas?
Science Education
This resulted in a characterization of teachers’ ideas in four areas of discourse: demarca-

tion of science; scientific procedures; approaches to reliable knowledge; and professional
and institutional features of science. These areas essentially follow from our reading of
the transcripts in which we identified recurrent themes running through responses to the
different scenarios. Such reading and interpretation are, of course, influenced by our un-
derstanding of the nature of science literature more broadly.
Teachers in our sample argued qualitatively different views on what was associated/not
associated or belonged/did not belong to science in responses to several of the pedagogical
scenarios. For example, in the first pedagogical scenario, teachers referred to the purposes
of scientists’ activities and their areas of work as demarcating science and nonscience. In the
second pedagogical scenario, teachers talked about activities considered in scientific and
nonscientific domains. They tended to include in the scientific domain activities associated
with school science topics and some professionals (e.g., doctors, chemists, astronauts).
When they argued that something was not science/scientific, they suggested that it was
because no scientific knowledge or procedure was being applied. Thus, “demarcation of
science” was identified as the first area of discourse to reclassify such responses across
pedagogical scenarios.
The second area of discourse, “scientific procedures,” followed from recurrent ideas
on what counted for teachers as the actual procedural skills in scientific inquiry. They
mentioned not only concrete skills and strategies but also purposes of scientific inquiry.
Broader issues around observation, evidence, and ideas and factors contributing to re-
liable/unreliable knowledge were also present in teachers’ responses and considered to
belong to the third area of discourse denoted “approaches to reliable knowledge.”
Both areas, “scientific procedures” and “approaches to reliable knowledge,” have at
their heart an empirical dimension. For the purposes of the across-scenarios analysis, we
decided to keep these as separate areas of discourse on the basis that, from the point of
view of teachers, scientific inquiry was very much connected with how scientists conduct
investigations and how investigations are made in school science. “Approaches to reliable
knowledge” was broader than that; it had to do with having evidence to support knowledge
claims, that is, to sustain knowledge as well-founded.
The fourth area of discourse, “professional and institutional features,” was also identified,
although teachers rarely mentioned professional features of scientists or institutional aspects
of their work. Its inclusion as a distinct area provides an integrated view of science in which
scientific knowledge, scientific procedures, and scientists are incorporated.
Having identified these four areas of teacher discourse, the full database of teachers’
responses was coded again. This analysis also identified qualitative features of responses
such as the degree of contextualization (as discussed in the following text). Although there
were other ideas expressed by teachers in the interviews, we decided to include in this
analysis framework only those mentioned by several teachers and appearing across at least
two of the pedagogical scenarios. We acknowledge that the focus on four thematic areas
of discourse with an epistemological perspective leaves out other significant issues (e.g.,
social aspects of the nature of science, teacher attitudes toward the world of science) that
sometimes featured in teacher discourse but were not the focus of the interview studies.
FINDINGS
Distinctive Forms of Contextualization
Within each area of discourse, teachers displayed views that were qualitatively different
in terms of elaboration of ideas. Therefore, we wanted to pay attention not only to what
Science Education
was said but also to how it was said. Elaborated responses could be extended, use a
rich vocabulary, sequence a series of ideas logically, or include contextual information.
We believe that the inclusion of contextual details as a form of elaboration in teachers’
responses is a key characteristic of their profile of ideas about science. We use the term
contextualization to refer to the articulation and clarification of ideas through the use of
examples and background information such as references to a specific person, place, time,
topic, or purpose that is science related. In the following text, we provide contrasting
examples of contextualization as a form of elaboration, taken from responses to the first
pedagogical scenario in which teachers argue why scientists should be introduced to students
as ordinary people instead of gifted or talented.
Limited contextualization:
I thought that any person could do scientific work. When we focus on a problem and
try to find a solution, in an informal way, we are applying a (scientific)1 method, right?
That is important, as much as being careful, systematic, doing things properly and having
experience. But scientific work, well, we all can do it. (. . . ).2 [12A-Scientists]3
Intermediate contextualization:
Anybody can become a scientist. I read in the National Geographic magazine, that . . . 4
there was a farmer who helped scientists, some astronomers, to move magnifying lenses,
something like a huge telescope. They moved the lenses to a place to observe the stars.
[10A-Scientists]
Extended contextualization:
Having a high degree of responsibility, perseverance, interest, curiosity and suitable training
. . . and obviously the capacity (. . . ) anybody would be able to become a great scientist.
He or she would need to have the means like communication resources, an institution,
funding. . . . If (the person) receives support, any Mexican (could become a scientist). . . .
Because there are very capable Mexicans and if they are given the resources, it could be
possible. . . . [10A-Scientists]
In these examples, there are references to people involved in science incorporating con-
textual details, ranging from the idea that anybody can do scientific work to a view in
which being engaged in professional science is clearly different from being involved in
science in other contexts, because it takes specific training and a connection to an institu-
tion. Looking at teachers’ responses across the pedagogical scenarios, contextualization of
responses tended to follow identifiable patterns ranging from simplistic generalizations in
which almost anything counts as science and scientific to fine distinctions based in contex-
tual features such as specific physical spaces, purposes, topics, procedures, knowledge, or
people engaged in science. This led us to develop a general framework to describe the range
1
Within quotations from teachers in the data, the text in parenthesis is an insertion for the sake of clarity
and readability.
2
Within quotations, ellipsis in parenthesis (. . . ) means that some words were removed for the sake of
readability.
3
The text in brackets refers to the number assigned to the teacher’s interview transcript (e.g., 12A) and
the pedagogical scenario responded (Scientists, A; Scientific inquiry, B; or Measurement, C).
4
Within quotations, ellipsis (. . . ) indicates a pause in the discourse.
Science Education
of teachers’ ideas about the world of science that included contextualization as a distinctive
feature of teachers’ responses. Three different patterns in contextualization were identified.
• Limited contextualization: A lack of discrimination, unclear examples, or no exam-

ples combined with vague or no references to contextual elements in ideas about
science.
• Intermediate contextualization: Unsystematic use of criteria, examples, and back-
ground information in the expression of ideas about science.
• Extended contextualization: More articulated and clearer responses, including dis-
crimination of aspects related to science and inclusion of arguments recognizing
diversity and complexity in ideas about science.
Limited and intermediate contextualization included responses that are less defensible
from a normative perspective, given their lack of discrimination regarding critical fea-
tures of science-related issues. We did not identify examples of extended contextualization
that were not defensible from a normative perspective. An individual teacher typically
expressed views on the nature of science that spanned the range from limited to extended
contextualization. Therefore, the framework is a classification of responses and not indi-
vidual teachers. This reflects a situated perspective on teachers’ ideas about science: An
individual’s understanding in this area cannot be represented as abstracted and generic but
must be nuanced through reference to specific contexts. In the following sections, each
area of teacher discourse is exemplified. Quotations are chosen to illustrate differences in
contextualization.
Thematic Areas of Ideas About Science in Teachers’ Discourse

In this section, we present the four thematic areas of teacher discourse and integrate these
with the distinctive patterns of contextualization to provide a general framework of teachers’
responses (Table 1). The demarcation of science area includes quotes in which teachers
display intuitive views on what belongs and does not belong to the world of science. In
the second area, scientific procedures, teachers expressed several ideas related to scientific
methodology, such as procedural skills, strategies, and purposes. The approaches to reliable
knowledge area groups teachers’ views regarding the grounds for developing confidence
in ideas claimed to be scientific or for accepting scientific knowledge as reliable. The
final area, professional and institutional features of science, groups the small number of
responses in which teachers mentioned professional features of scientists and institutional
aspects of their work.
Teachers’ Discourse on Science Demarcation. Accounts of the boundaries of science

sometimes refer to distinctive processes of theory building and justification of knowledge
(e.g., O’Hear, 1989) or theories being open to empirical refutation (Popper, 1959). However,
there is no single account of the boundaries of science, that is, what counts as scientific, that
enjoys broad support among scholars. Thus, to some extent, it is legitimate that teachers
develop and hold different views on what belongs and does not belong to the world of
science. Teachers in our study did distinguish science from other activities by referring
to persons and physical spaces, purposes and fields of study, and the use of a special
methodology. Row 1 in Table 1 summarizes the patterns in contextualization regarding
demarcation of science.
When teachers talked about people involved in science and the physical spaces where
they were thought to work, limited contextualization was characterized by references to
Science Education
unspecific persons and spaces. The assumption that anybody can be involved in doing
something scientific and that science can take place anywhere was expressed sometimes
with little consideration of purpose, field, or area:
Interviewer: What did you make of this discussion about introducing some scientists to
students of primary education?
(. . . ) I consider that science should not be separated from us, that we are doing science
in every activity we conduct with students in any area . . . not necessarily only in Natural
Sciences, but in any area, in our house, in our school. . . . I mean, science is everywhere,
what we have to do is discover it and discover it in a nice way. (. . . ). [5A-Scientists]
In an intermediate pattern of contextualization, the person and space involved in a particular

action determined whether it could count as scientific or science related.
Interviewer: Why do you think this description (Ulcers, Appendix B) does not involve a
method or methods of scientific inquiry?
Well, look, it depends also on the person. If we are talking about a doctor, a scientist, a
biologist, a chemist, of course he knows that (stating the cause of ulcers as involving some-
thing scientific) because he knows it, right? It really depends who you think is answering
the question. [1B-Scientific inquiry]
Also in an intermediate pattern, science and scientific activities were associated by teachers
with their most familiar referents in the classroom. The image of the student as scientist
was prevalent:
Interviewer: How do you think scientists proceed when they do enquiries?
(. . . ) Somebody here collects bees; another person had a box with woodlice. . . . Well,
Darwin started with mollusks; I do not think these (students) are weird if they start with
woodlice. . . . I think that independently of doing it in class or not, I think all students are
scientists by nature. They find out, look for . . . (. . . .) they are interested in knowing how
they are, what they are. Sometimes it is us who limit them, but for me they are scientists
since they are born. . . . [1B-Scientific inquiry]
Science and scientific activities being situated in the classroom, and no distinction with
science in other contexts, is perhaps not surprising, given that this is where teachers interact
with science. This view may also reflect an agenda of “inclusion” and “science for all”
within the school science classroom.
In contrast, in extended contextualization teachers’ responses often provided clear dis-
tinctions between school and professional science:
(A spontaneous comment on the use of living beings in professional science after discussion
of their use in the classroom)
And then something is sacrificed in the name of science. It is for (students) to notice that
in sciences it is like that, scientists in real life in their labs use living beings: rabbits, mice,
chimpanzees. It sounds cruel, but this helps human beings. At the end of the day, our
well-being, quality of life depends on them . . . on science and technology and how much
they progress (. . . ). [5C-Measurement]
Science Education
Other teachers explicitly mentioned specific scientists’ areas of focus in science or scientific
disciplines.
Interviewer: Have you ever met a scientist?
(. . . ) in the field of psychology, my nephew. He studies the behavior of people. I think, a

scientist is not only someone who discovers or invents something but also someone who
studies the behavior of people with cancer (. . . ). [2A-Scientists]
Rarely, some teachers mentioned or suggested a distinction between natural and social
sciences based on their area of focus and workplaces.
Interviewer: In which other context do scientists work?
There are social scientists (. . . ). For instance, a person interested in studying an indigenous
group. He has to go where they live (. . . ), to be in the group, to live with them, to see how
they live. (. . . ). [18A-Scientists]
Few teachers provided responses extended in contextualization, that is, drawing upon
examples and substantial background knowledge to argue what belongs or does not belong
to science. Individually, teachers tended to provide responses addressing one or two aspects
(e.g., specific person, physical space, purposes, or areas of interest). Only as a group did
teachers’ responses reveal a profile of ideas about science demarcation.
Teachers’ Discourse on Scientific Procedures. Scientific procedures refers to what

counted for teachers as the procedural skills, strategies, and purposes of scientific in-
quiry. Teachers were not expected to provide arguments concerning inductive or deductive
methods, falsification, or paradigms; it is unlikely that they would have come across such
academic terms and perspectives. However, it was expected that their discourse would
reflect what in their view scientific procedures involve. Row 2 in Table 1 summarizes the
identified patterns of teacher discourse in this area.
When teachers referred to procedures, strategies, and purposes of scientific work, lim-
ited contextualization was associated with views suggesting that almost anything can be
regarded as a scientific way of proceeding with the underlying argument that there was
some resemblance to scientific actions or topics:
Interviewer: Why would you use that description (Painkillers, Appendix B) as an example
of the use of scientific inquiry?
(. . . ) Because it is about diseases and drugs. It could be a chemical laboratory which

produces medicines, sort of. . . . Somebody would be confirming that the tablet contains a
substance (. . . ). [12B-Scientific inquiry]
In other cases, teachers argued that a particular activity was scientific inquiry in the context
of everyday life or simply stated the connection to a scientific topic with no reference to a
particular person or context.
In the intermediate pattern of contextualization, a single action such as observing, making
records or comparisons was enough to sustain something as investigative and involving
scientific inquiry without reference to purpose:
Science Education
Interviewer: Why do you think that description (Magnifying glass, Appendix B) involves
a method or methods of scientific inquiry?
Observation. Because observation is a step of scientific method; based on observation we

find what we look for. So, in my view, observing little animals is about scientific method,
because of that important step of scientific method. [3B-Scientific inquiry]
Overall, when asked about how they think scientists proceed in their work, some responses
suggested that there is a general way of doing scientific inquiry to be followed without
references to topic or field of study:
Interviewer: How do you think scientists proceed when they do enquiries?
They (scientists) have to use the steps of the method because without them they would not
reach what they want to find out. Steps are for that, you have to follow them. [3B-Scientific
inquiry]
The pattern of extended contextualization in scientific procedures includes quotes in which

teachers were more reflective and made discriminating judgments regarding what counts
as scientific inquiry. They deployed some examples to develop a richer view of scientific
ways of working as situated, purposeful, and involving a sequence of actions:
Interviewer: Why do you think that description (Magnifying glass, Appendix B) does not
involve a method or methods of scientific inquiry?
Look, if you talk only about that and if I tell you that one person is observing different
insects and arachnids carefully, it does not imply a (scientific) process necessarily. A method
is a process; it is a procedure that you are going to follow. And this, if it only says (that this
person) observes, what is the process? Only to observe and then you stop? I mean, where is
the information? Where is the knowledge? Where is what you have observed in this work?
I mean, it does not come to a conclusion. You only do a part of the procedure. What is
observing useful for? Or what do you observe them for? Or who told you to observe them?
(. . . ). [1B-Scientific inquiry]
This process view acknowledges a more complex picture but was not as frequent as the
single-action view. Extended contextualization in this area was also associated with refer-
ences to the diversity and context-specificity of scientific procedures.
Interviewer: Do most scientists use the same method or methods?
Well, several methods, depending on professions, depending on how science is advancing,

in cancer research for instance. . . . There are methods and tools that scientists use. I mean,
it is not the same now as (it was) years ago. . . . [16B-Scientific inquiry].
This last quote is an example of extended rather than intermediate contextualization because
intermediate responses refer to the existence of a standard scientific method as a tool of
general applicability. This particular teacher provides a more developed response, that is,
that there is no single standard scientific method used in every case.
Teacher discourse around the theme of scientific procedures focused on the gathering of
mainly observational data. The most common actions involved in scientific inquiry were
detailed observation, comparisons between different conditions, description of mechanisms,
Science Education
confirmation of ideas, and the application of knowledge. Teachers tended to be more focused
on the procedural aspects of scientific inquiry than on its purposes. They referred rarely to
purposes such as obtaining useful information, knowing something new, or evaluating an
idea.
Teachers’ Discourse on Approaches to Reliable Knowledge. In contrast to views on

what scientific inquiry involves in terms of actions or purposes, this area of teacher discourse
is about the grounds for accepting scientific knowledge as reliable (see Row 3 in Table 1).
Views about confidence in scientific knowledge with limited contextualization reflected
the assumption that gaining scientific knowledge could be done through the collection of
relevant information without reference to the quality of the data-gathering process, the
person, or purpose involved. Here, observation is a key feature of scientific inquiry and
sometimes an isolated act of observation was considered to involve something scientific:
Interviewer: Why do you think that activity (Coffee beans, Appendix B) involves a method
or methods of scientific inquiry?
(. . . ) The person is comparing the size of seeds. After seeding it in the same field, from
one year to the other, and getting different results, then he would find through observation
again and comparison, he would know for sure that something failed (. . . ) [3B-Scientific
inquiry]
There was a tendency for teachers to state that evidence could be obtained from observations,
comparisons, experiments, fieldwork, and laboratory work, independently of contextual
elements (person, purpose, physical space). Such activities were seen as opportunities for
noticing, confirming, trialing, observing, and producing some result or evidential outcome
that would speak for itself.
Intermediate contextualization involves views reflecting an initial distinction between
observation being conducted for any purpose and observation with a scientific purpose:
Interviewer: Why do you think that activity (Volcanoes TV program, Appendix B) does not
involve a method or methods of scientific inquiry?
(. . . ) I do not know what the aim is, or where a method would enter. Because this person
is only observing something about big volcanoes, but it does not say what for . . . (do they
want) to know about the intensity of eruption or something? A scientist could tell with
apparatus (. . . ) I mean, according to the question, I do not see what the observation is for.
I do not know. [16B-Scientific inquiry]
Intermediate contextualization also captures those quotes suggesting some difficulties in

differentiating between empirical evidence and ideas.
Interviewer: Why do you think that description (Salty soup, Appendix B) involves a method
or methods of scientific inquiry?
(. . . ) And with the potato, we do it in that moment and the salt crystals attract students‘
attention, because they confirm (something) objectively, right? They observe that molecules
of water really escaped and (salt) crystals were formed again (. . . ). [5B-Scientific inquiry]
In this case, the argument is about the possibility of “observing” molecules moving away.
However, although water evaporation can be seen, understanding this phenomenon in terms
Science Education
of escaping molecules cannot simply involve observation with no previous introduction of

a key idea. This form of unproblematic observation resembles the view that “seeing is
knowing” (Abd-El-Khalick, 2001). Here, we identify a lack of recognition that ideas—
such as molecules—precede observations and are imposed on them.
Extended contextualization regarding approaches to reliable knowledge is characterized
by understanding scientific observations as systematic actions in a scientifically relevant
situation in which there is something to be observed and a clear purpose. In our data, the
need for systematic and purposeful observations was rarely considered; only observation
and recording were mentioned together:
Interviewer: Why do you think that activity (Salty soup, Appendix B) does not involve a
method or methods of scientific inquiry?
(. . . ) This (activity) could be in the group of scientific (activities) (. . . ) But, only if it is

based on several steps and observation of qualities of food. Why does something absorb
salt? (. . . ) (consider) the reason why that happens, why it happens and then start . . . make
observations and records. What happens if I add potatoes? What happens if I add tomato?
So, what is the substance (that removes the salt)? [1B- Scientific inquiry]
Extended contextualization in this area would also consider aspects likely to affect the
quality of data. Teachers commenting on this issue were able to list potential factors
involved:
Interviewer: If you conduct an activity with your students such as the one you read about
and they obtained different data and different conclusions, would that be a problem?
(. . . ) It has much to do with the positioning of the marble and the ruler. I would like to
have exactly the same surface, exactly the same material, so that students using the set
of materials conduct the experiment and then another group of students use the same set
of materials and then other group. . . . Then it would be difficult to obtain such different
measured distances. (. . . ). [11C-Measurement]
The extended contextualization pattern is also connected to ideas on scientific knowledge

being subject to scrutiny and verification:
Interviewer: Would different measured data and different conclusions be a problem for you
as a teacher conducting the activity?
(. . . ) The scientist also makes mistakes and (proceeds) through trial and error. . . . I try
to let them (students) see that scientific methodology is precisely about experimenting,
experimenting and experimenting until you get something and they (scientists) have to
make notes and confirm things again because when they publish something they have to
prove that what they say is true. If not, it is not science because science is supposed to be
something real, proved, verifiable (. . . ). [5C-Measurement]
Teachers’ Discourse on Professional and Institutional Features of Science. In re-

sponse to the pedagogical scenarios, a few teachers’ responses referred to the characteristics
of professional scientists, the way they work, and the spaces and institutions they work in
(see Row 4 in Table 1).
Limited contextualization was reflected in an emphasis on the personal characteristics
of scientists. The attribution of mainly positive features revealed a sympathetic perception
Science Education
of scientists. This is connected to the common view that teachers would like their students
to develop the perceived characteristics of scientists such as dedication, perseverance,
curiosity, and a motivation to learn:
Interviewer: In your view, are there any characteristic features of scientists?
I believe they (scientists) are persons, who persist, persist strongly . . . I mean they do not
give up easily. Let’s say they are trying to achieve something, and sometimes they face
failures, but even with that they keep going. They persist, until they achieve it. There was
somebody, I hardly remember him, who made the electric bulb. He made mistakes hundreds
of times, sort of. But he kept going. I mean they are people who although they face failure
in their work, they do not demoralize themselves. They are still there. They are people who
persist, they have that ambition to fulfil their goals. [17A-Scientists]
Such responses reflect limited insights into the details of scientists’ professional life except
that they are “those unfamiliar yet extraordinary beings” (Rampal, 1992, p. 432). The
exclusive attention to personal qualities suggests an idealized image, useful in a school
culture in which individual achievements are praised.
Responses classified as intermediate contextualization focus on particular attributes of
scientists such as their responsibilities, professional values, and ways of working:
I think they share them with other persons, but they are more dedicated. If we talk about
their method, they are methodical, precisely. They do not start something and then abandon
it. They are concerned with continuity. They set goals (. . . ) they observe, they analyze, they
compare, they establish some hypothetical thing, and then, through all their research, they
see if they were right or wrong, and they conclude very interesting things. [18A-Scientists]
Also in the intermediate pattern, we locate those responses in which a link between scientists
and institutions is acknowledged, although not developed:
No, unfortunately. Probably I met somebody without knowing he was a scientist. . . . I have
not had an opportunity to go (. . . ) to the (local) university. That would be a way to start,
right?
Interviewer: Once in the university, where would you look for scientists?
There are people working in research labs (. . . ). [7A-Scientists]
The extended contextualization pattern regarding professional and institutional features of

science includes references to other possible characteristics of scientists’ work such as
skepticism, collegiality, and a willingness to publish and discuss their work. Few such
responses were identified in our data. The following response refers to collegiality or
collective thinking:
Science Education
They share (some qualities) because they work together. Because it is better if you have
an idea and you share it with somebody. Probably, he/she supports your idea or provides
other points of view and makes you see things you did not consider, to discover something
and makes you reflect on something (. . . ) There might be things they (scientists) have not
detected, and if others do so, then it is stimulating that they share things. [3A-Scientists]
In extended contextualization, teachers would be able to express awareness of a range

of institutions associated with scientists and their work not only as workplaces, such as
universities or research centers, but also other institutions such as professional scientific
associations, funding organizations, or publishers of scientific work. In our database, few
responses mentioned particular institutions:
(. . . ) There is a doctor in space cardiology, Ramiro Iglesias Leal. He worked at NASA. He

was in charge of checking the heart of an astronaut in Apollo VIII. He works now in the
Polytechnic Institute of Colima. (. . . ). [17A-Scientists]
Some recognition of scientists’ need for institutional and economical support was identified:
Interviewer: Why would you support the proposal of presenting scientists as any person?
Any person who has these qualities, the training and support, and obviously the capacity
(. . . ) will be able to become a great scientist because (he/she) will have the means to
achieve it. Communication, resources, institution, funds (. . . ). Because there are many
capable Mexican scientists and if they are given the resources, it would be possible to
achieve enormous things for our benefit. [10A-Scientists]
A strongly extended contextualization would reflect some recognition of scientists as actors

in an intellectual enterprise with different working strategies depending on their area of
interest and professional and institutional settings.
To provide a basic overview of the prevalence of responses among teachers in our sample,
Table 2 shows the number of responses coded within each part of the framework. Given
the situated nature of ideas about the nature of science, an individual teacher provided
responses falling into different patterns of contextualization (limited, intermediate, and
extended), and depending on their content and elaboration, different segments of the same
TABLE 2
Prevalence of Responses Across the Framework (Number of Coded
Responses)
Areas of Teacher Discourse Limited Intermediate Extended Subtotal

1. Demarcation of science 34 25 8 63
2. Scientific procedures 17 14 5 36
3. Approaches to reliable knowledge 29 11 9 49
4. Professional and institutional features 13 8 2 23
of science
Subtotal 91 57 25 171
Science Education
response could be associated to more than one thematic area. Consequently, numbers in
Table 2 are a relative measure of how teacher responses were distributed.
Table 2 shows that most responses were coded as limited or intermediate contextual-
ization. There were few responses showing extended contextualization. Furthermore, there
were few responses reflecting professional and institutional features. Although some pat-
terns rarely appeared in teacher responses, we decided to keep them in the framework
because it intends to portray the kind of responses we found as much as those that would
be possible to find in teacher discourse.
Following from this analysis, we can infer likely messages that these teachers as a group
may communicate in their pedagogical practice. It is likely that most of these teachers would
communicate ideas about science, scientific procedures, scientific knowledge, and scientists
with a limited or intermediate use of contextual details. Because of a lack of clear references
to specific people, spaces, purposes, topics, and other contextual and discriminating details,
the majority of these teachers are likely to make no distinctions between school science
and science in other contexts. They are also likely to portray scientific inquiry as a tool
of general applicability, scientific knowledge as simply emerging from the observation of
phenomena and collection of information, and scientists as dedicated and motivated persons
with no particular connection to a community of practice.
The fact that a few responses showed extended contextualization suggests that some
teachers may also communicate that science is a human activity taking place in a variety of
contexts engaging different people, purposes, and areas of interest, that scientific inquiry
is a systematic purposeful process framed by scientific ideas, and that scientific knowledge
must withstand scrutiny.
Following other researchers (e.g., Nott & Wellington, 1996; Windschitl, 2004), we would
like to avoid the perspective that teachers simply hold naive and inadequate ideas about
science as many studies have suggested (e.g., Cobern & Loving, 2002; Tairab, 2001). An
important message coming from the analysis of teachers’ discourse is that they do share
ways of representing the world of science but that these ideas reflect a lack of opportunities
to develop and enrich their understandings about the nature of professional science and
science in other contexts.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

New Insights Arising From This Study
We believe that there is much to be gained by a move away from research which
investigates the (usually naive) ideas about the world of science displayed by teachers
in response to direct questions, toward more detailed accounts of the ideas displayed
by teachers in situations closely connected to classroom practices. The critical issues are
whether or not what is known, and how it is expressed, is relevant for the purpose of teaching;
and how teachers might be supported to develop ideas about the nature of science that are
relevant for a particular educational setting (e.g., primary school science). Therefore, we
adopted a methodology based on interviews framed within pedagogical scenarios and an
analytical approach ideographically oriented but informed by contributions from academic
studies on the nature of science, previous empirical studies, and real teaching demands.
These methodological features embody a situated view of teachers’ knowledge (Brown
et al., 1989; Sternberg & Wagner, 1994), a perspective in which the setting is crucial to the
development and application of knowledge.
We found that teachers do share and display diverse ideas about science when they
are asked to express them in pedagogical scenarios. This profile is diverse in content and
Science Education
elaboration. Recurrent themes in their responses enabled us to characterize four broad

areas of teacher discourse which are connected to real teaching demands and informed by
literature in the field. Distinctive patterns in the incorporation of contextual details were
also identified.
Teachers, as a group, referred separately to some purposes of scientists’ work, different
areas of interest, and personal and professional features of scientists. Ideas about scientific
inquiry included several aspects involved in deciding whether something could count as sci-
entific inquiry: domain, person, purpose, and specific actions. Ideas about scientific inquiry
as a standard method or a set of independent steps contrasted with other ideas referring to
scientific inquiry as a purposeful process entailing some methodological diversity. Some of
the ideas expressed by teachers are difficult to justify, such as the idea that almost anything
counts as scientific inquiry. On the other hand, many responses are quite defensible, such as
the view that scientists build on the work of previous scientists or that measurement tools
need to be well calibrated. However, although defensible, most responses were not richly
contextualized. Thus, a key aim is to provide teachers with an understanding of the rich
diversity of areas, purposes, people, procedures, and instruments involved in the practice
of sciences.
This research provides a characterization of teachers’ ideas which highlights contextu-
alization as a crucial feature of teachers’ verbal accounts of aspects of science. Contextu-
alization of ideas about science is a critical dimension in the effective communication of
ideas about the nature of science in the classroom. This means shifting from a normative
view concerned with whether or not teachers know about the nature of science to a situated
view in which the quality of teachers‘ discourse about the world of science is focused in
terms of contextual details.
Some studies reported in the literature (e.g., Cotham & Smith, 1981; Kimball, 1968)
have based judgments on the adequacy of teachers’ understanding of the nature of science
exclusively on philosophical perspectives. We would argue that adopting only academic
normative criteria without combining them with more pedagogically oriented approaches
leads to a very limited perspective on teachers’ ideas about science, with limited relevance
for their professional practice. By using follow-up semistructured interviews, this research
acknowledges that respondents and researchers do not necessarily perceive the same mean-
ings in the wording of discreet questions and responses, what Munby (1982) called the
“doctrine of immaculate perception.” Within the interviews, teachers had the opportunity
to extend and justify their responses. In its methodological approach and overall results,
this research has many commonalities with the work of Nott and Wellington (1996), Taylor
and Dana (2003), and Windschitl (2004). These studies have also used questions and tasks
that teachers are likely to link to their professional practice. In common with many of these
studies, we found that teachers provide a diversity of responses, but that
. . . Teachers do not necessarily have “inadequate” views of the nature of science. They
have teachers’ views of the nature of science which are determined by their academic and
professional histories. Teachers do not talk about science as science or science education
researchers. Nor do they talk about science as professional philosophers, historians or
sociologists. (Nott & Wellington, 1996, pp. 290 – 291)
The ideas that teachers have displayed in these studies are functional. By this, we mean
that it is a kind of knowledge which can be shaped, simplified, or adapted to the practical
needs of teachers in specific teaching situations. This is a case of what Windschitl called a
“folk theory” of scientific inquiry which combines elements ranging from those considered
congruent with authentic science inquiry (e.g., methodological setbacks are to be expected
Science Education
and sometimes results can be inconclusive) to misrepresentations of fundamental aspects

of scientific inquiry. For example, the notion of a “scientific method” as atheoretical, linear,
and universal was predominant among participants in Windschitl’s study and said to be a
counterproductive but “useful fiction.”
The patterns of contextualization described in our framework and the area of discourse
“approaches to reliable knowledge” resemble some aspects of the framework developed by
Driver et al. (1996) for characterizing features of students’ epistemological reasoning. They
referred to the least sophisticated level in their framework as phenomenon-based reasoning,
in which students understand empirical investigation as an unproblematic process of finding
out and making things happen so that they can be observed. The second level, called
relation-based reasoning, is characterized by a focus on planned or controlled interventions
and the identification of influential variables. In our characterization of teachers’ ideas,
unproblematic observation of phenomena also featured strongly. While Driver et al. were
interested in students’ informal ideas about science and how they may interact with learning,
we were interested in teachers’ ideas and how they may interact with teaching.
The multiple efforts to develop the Views of the Nature of Science (VNOS) questionnaire
by Abd-El-Khalick (2001) and Lederman et al. (2002) include another classification of
nature of science knowledge to which we can relate the framework presented here. Several
versions of the VNOS open-ended questionnaire have been trialed and used with high school
students, undergraduates, postgraduates, and elementary and secondary teachers. Open
responses to these instruments are usually classified into naive and informed views against
a characterization of science as tentative, empirical, theory-laden, inferential, imaginative,
and creative. Such characterization is, as Lederman et al. suggest, highly informed by
philosophical perspectives and an agreed view of the nature of science depicted in several
science education documents. While the analytical framework for the VNOS probe is a
normative one (what people should know is defined a priori), our characterization is based
on an ideographic approach intending to span the diversity of responses. Our framework also
distinguishes between sophisticated and unsophisticated ideas. However, this distinction is
related to the contextualization in responses, a critical dimension of understanding within
a pedagogical context.
What Are the Implication of This Research for Teacher Education

and Curriculum Development?
In Mexico, recent primary science education curriculum materials include explicit mes-
sages about the nature of science. For example, these materials describe the existence of
several distinct science disciplines and the idea that the purpose of science is to provide
explanations about the natural world. In our study, teachers’ ideas were more concerned
with the perceived positive personal features and the beneficial outcomes of scientists’
endeavors. However, the beneficial purposes of scientists’ work coincide with a general
“positive and balanced” view of science uncritically put forward in these educational docu-
ments. With regard to scientific inquiry, curriculum documents suggest that students should
learn that scientific investigations are framed by explanatory frameworks and may produce
results that can be interpreted in different ways. However, these more epistemic aspects
of science were absent in most of teachers’ responses. The statement in teacher resource
books that there is no single method of conducting a scientific project contrasted with the
fairly simplified view of teachers that a standard scientific method exists and can be applied
regardless of the domain of inquiry. Thus, the lack of recognition of diversity and contex-
tual details associated with the practice of science is a significant barrier to the effective
implementation of this theme of the curriculum.
Science Education
Given the low prevalence of responses with an extended contextualization, it is tempting

to suggest that most teachers in our sample are ill equipped to address aspects of the
nature of science in the classroom. However, the fact that at least some teachers are
able to elaborate more sophisticated ideas about science suggests that it is possible to
support teachers in developing their expertise in this area. As a base of knowledge and
understanding likely to support teachers in addressing ideas about science, primary teacher
education might consider the following aims derived from the framework developed here
and related curriculum demands:
Demarcation of science
◦ Recognizing different institutions and actors in science
◦ Being aware of diverse fields of study and purposes in scientific disciplines
Scientific procedures
◦ Acknowledging the diversity of scientific skills and strategies
◦ Recognizing the role of purposes and framing ideas in scientific inquiry
Approaches to reliable knowledge
◦ Going beyond simple observations in science (as shown in the following text)
◦ Awareness of the need to consider the quality of data in scientific activities
◦ Recognizing the relationship between empirical evidence and ideas in science
Social and institutional features of science and scientists
◦ Displaying some knowledge of scientific institutions
◦ Associating some values (e.g., collegiality, informed skepticism) and commit-
ments (e.g., accountability, social responsibility) to professional scientists
A strong message for curriculum development can be drawn from the characterization
of ideas about science offered here. Highly contextualized descriptions of the practice
of science were uncommon among the teachers in our sample. However, such descrip-
tions could be exemplified in curriculum and teaching materials. For instance, Millar
(2006) describes how the course textbook and the accompanying teaching materials of the
Twenty First Century Science project have incorporated current and historical episodes in
which knowledge claims are contested. These resources provide opportunities to open up
discussions in the classroom concerning the validity of scientific knowledge, the role of the
scientific community, and the application of scientific understanding in socially relevant
contexts.
Similarly, Wong and Hodson (2009) have examined features of the nature of science in
authentic scientific inquiry through in-depth interviews with practicing scientists working
in diverse areas. They identify the diversity and context dependence of practices in contem-
porary science and how such practices sometimes contrast with the discrete, abstract, and
decontextualized nature of science “tenets” often appearing in science curricula. They ad-
vocate the development of rich descriptions and case studies of authentic scientific practice
to serve as teaching resources. Our findings support the idea that such highly contextualized
descriptions of scientific practice are needed to support nature of science teaching.
In this study, we did not attempt to identify the origin of the ideas about the nature
of science held by teachers. However, given the examples and contextual information in
teachers’ responses, it is obvious that their direct contact with the world of science is,
generally speaking, very limited. We concur with the sociocultural perspective adopted by
Van Eijck, Hsu, and Roth (2009) in the sense that ideas about the nature of science are
derived and coproduced as a result of a series of concrete experiences at a given point in
time. Van Eijck et al. analyzed preuniversity biology students “images of science” during
and after internships in a scientific laboratory. They found that students’ ideas went through
Science Education
a trajectory of translations determined by the use of particular actions and tools and a
particular division of labor in scientific practice. This suggests that teachers in our study
have had little opportunities to approach the world of science in concrete situations but also
that they could benefit from access to scientific practices, either through written materials
or through concrete experiences.
By adopting a situated perspective on teachers’ ideas about science, we agree with
Nott and Wellington (1996) that the goal of educational researchers interested in teachers’
ideas about science must be to understand them as they are expressed within pedagogical
situations. It is there where the most significant expression of them usually occurs and
where it demonstrates its true potential and limitations. A situated perspective also suggests
that ideas about science are uniquely determined within their context and that they cannot be
studied in isolation without paying attention to their defining characteristics and pedagogical
relevance. This perspective has methodological implications that were applied in the design
of the interview studies that we have described here.
APPENDIX A
Pedagogical Scenario: “Designing Posters About Scientists”
A group of people designing science education materials meet to decide the content of a
new series of posters aiming to introduce scientists to students at primary education level.
However, they find it difficult to reach an agreement as different proposals emerge. Read
the following discussion:
– We should include scientists such as Newton, Einstein, and Marie Curie as

HISTORICAL examples of scientists who made remarkable contributions in the
past.
– I think it would be better to present CONTEMPORARY scientists, although they
may not be very famous, such as David Philips, Pablo Rudomı́n, and Mayra de la
Torre, who are currently conducting interesting and challenging enquiries.
– My view is that we must present famous scientists such as Pasteur, Darwin, and
Mendel, MEN of science who revolutionized our understanding about the natural
world.
– Hold on, I really think that we must avoid giving the message that only men are great
scientists. We should consider presenting FEMALE scientists such as Marie Curie,
Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, and Julieta Fierro.
– Whoever we include in the posters, we have to emphasize that scientists are GIFTED
AND TALENTED people who are interested in finding answers to challenging
questions.
– I totally disagree. We should communicate the idea that nobody is born equipped with
the knowledge and abilities of a scientist, that ANYBODY can become a scientist
with enough interest, curiosity, and training.
– Right; therefore, we should include some images of scientists wearing white coats
and working in the LABORATORY, surrounded by equipment and instruments.
– I beg your pardon, but we should not portray scientists working only in laboratories.
Many of them do work in OTHER PLACES like outdoor contexts, industries, or in
front of the computer.
– Frankly, I think we should not spend time and effort PRESENTING SCIENTISTS
to students through these posters. We should better PRESENT CONCEPTS AND
THEORIES, I mean proper scientific knowledge.
Science Education
– It would be appropriate to present scientists to SECONDARY STUDENTS but not

to PRIMARY STUDENTS.
– What would you say after listening to these proposals and opinions if you were invited
to participate in the discussion?
The follow-up written questions and interview agenda focused on the arguments that
teacher might express to support any of the proposals, and any features attributed to
scientists that teachers considered should be highlighted in the posters. Teachers were also
asked whether they considered that teaching students about scientist and their work was
worthwhile and whether they had ever met a scientist, prompting them to extend and justify
their responses. To illustrate the kind of questions used, we present in the following text the
interview agenda associated with the “designing a poster” pedagogical scenario. Questions
in parenthesis exemplify some follow-up questions.
Agenda for Semistructured Interview

1. What did you make of this discussion about introducing some scientists to students
of primary education?
2. If you were invited to participate in this discussion, would you like to raise any
points? (Have you ever engaged in a similar discussion in the school context?)
3. In your view, are there any characteristic features of scientists? (What do you mean
by “methodic”?)
4. Is it worth to teach students about scientists, how they are and how they work?
5.1 Why would you support the proposal of presenting historical examples of scien-
tists and/or versus contemporary scientists? (Which historical examples would you
consider?)
5.2 Why would you support the proposal of presenting male scientists and/or female
scientists? (Whom would you like your student to know as an example of a female
scientist?)
5.3 Why would you support the proposal of presenting scientists as gifted and talented
and/or as any person? (In which sense would you tell your students that scientists
are gifted?)
5.4 Why would you support the proposal of presenting scientists working in laboratories
and/or variety of contexts? (Which other contexts would you consider?)
5.5 Why would you support the proposal of presenting scientists and/or concepts and
theories?
5.6 Why would you support the proposal of presenting scientists to students of sec-
ondary education and/or students of primary education?
6. What could be achieved from presenting scientists to students?
7. Have you ever met a scientist? (Where did the scientist work?)
8. If you would have a series of posters about scientists, what would you do with
them? Any ideas about how you could use them?
APPENDIX B
Pedagogical Scenario: “Preparing a Lesson About Scientific Inquiry”
Imagine that you are preparing a lesson for a class of students aged 11–12 years in which
you would like to exemplify procedures that could be regarded as scientific. You find the
following descriptions of actions/activities in a resource book:
Science Education
Magnifier I. This person is carefully observing different insects and arachnids with a
magnifier.
Painkillers II. This person is giving painkillers to a group of people suffering
backache and sugar tablets to a similar group to see which group
reports any improvement.
Salty soup III. This person is adding slices of potato to a very salty soup in order to
see if it is true that potato will absorb the salt.
Coffee beans IV. This person is comparing the size of coffee beans from this year’s
harvest with that from the previous year.
TV program V. This person is watching a television program about famous volcanoes
and their activity.
Yellow plant VI. This person is claiming that a plant became yellow because the lack
of sunlight impeded the development of chlorophyll.
Ice cream VII. This person is doing a test to see if ice cream will melt faster in a
metallic container than in a plastic one.
Ulcers VIII. This person is suggesting, based in his or her experience that ulcers
are caused by a micro-organism and not by stress.
• In your view, which of these descriptions involve the use of a method or methods of
scientific inquiry? Why?
• Which of these descriptions would you present in your class to exemplify a method
or methods of scientific inquiry? Why?
The follow-up written questions and interview agenda focused on the arguments that
teacher made to justify whether the descriptions involved scientific inquiry, did not involve
scientific inquiry, or why were unsure about it. Teachers were also asked whether or not
they would use the descriptions as examples of scientific inquiry in the classroom, and why.
APPENDIX C
Pedagogical Scenario: “A Classroom Activity About Measurement”
You are conducting a textbook activity aiming to teach about measurement in scientific
inquiry for a class of students aged 11–12 years. You want your students to learn about
the factors involved in making good measurements and how these measurements can be
interpreted. Students observe a marble moving on the flat surface. Several different materials
are used for the surface. You ask them to measure how far the marble moves.
Groups of students are organized to do the activity. All groups are using the same
materials. After they do measurements and complete a record sheet, you take a look at the
results obtained by two groups of students and the answers they draw from the data:
Group 1
Material The marble moved
Wood 27.5 cm
Plastic cover 19.7 cm
Sandpaper 12.7 cm
Paper 24.0 cm
Cotton cloth 8.6 cm
Which material allowed the marble to move the furthest? Wood
Which material allowed the marble to move the least? Cotton cloth
Science Education
Group 2
Material The marble moved
Wood 22.3 cm
Plastic cover 17.2 cm
Sandpaper 10.0 cm
Paper 29.4 cm
Cotton cloth 12.5 cm
Which material allowed the marble to move the most? Bond paper
Which material allowed the marble to move the least? Sandpaper
You realize that these two groups, and indeed the other groups in the class, obtained
different measurements and that there is no agreement about which materials allow the
marble to move the most or least.
If you were to talk to your students about the differences between the measurements and
their interpretation, what would you say?
The follow-up written questions and interview agenda explored whether or not teachers
considered that obtaining different measures was a problem, and if so, why. Teachers were
also asked about the factors that might explain the differences, what they would do in such a
situation, and what explanations about the differences they would provide to their students.
This article builds upon a Ph.D. project conducted at the University of Leeds funded by the CONACYT
(National Council for Science and Technology) in Mexico. Additional support was provided by
the School of Education of the University of Leeds. The European Science Education Research
Association provided a travel award to support the writing of this article.
REFERENCES
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in pre-service elementary science courses:
Abandoning scientism, but. . . . Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 215 – 233.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (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.
Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students “ideas-about-science”: Five dimensions
of effective practice. Science Education, 88(5), 655 – 682.
Brickhouse, N. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice.
Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53 – 62.
Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher,
18(1), 32 – 42.
Cobern, W. W., & Loving, C. C. (2002). Investigation of pre-service elementary teachers’ thinking about science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1016 – 1031.
Cotham, J., & Smith, E. (1981). Development and validation of the conceptions of scientific theories test. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 18(5), 387 – 396.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, England:
Open University Press.
Guerra-Ramos, M. T. (2005). Ideas about science in Mexican primary education: Curriculum demands and
teachers’ thinking. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Hodson, D. (1993). Philosophic stance of secondary school science teachers, curriculum experiences and children’s
understanding of science; some preliminary findings. Interchange, 24(1-2), 41 – 52.
Kimball, M. E. (1968). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers.
Science Education
Kouladis, V., & Ogborn, J. (1989). Philosophy of science: An empirical study of teachers’ views. International
Journal of Science Education, 11(2), 173 – 184.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Lederman, N. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: a review of the research.
Lederman, N., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of the Nature of Science
Questionnaire; Towards valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of the nature of science.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.),
Handbook on research in science education (pp. 831 – 879). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Millar, R. (2006). Twenty First Century Science: Insights from the design and implementation of a scientific
literacy approach in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(13), 1499 – 1521.
Munby, H. (1982). The place of teachers’ beliefs in research on teacher thinking and decision making, and an
alternative methodology. Instructional Science, 11, 201 – 225.
Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1996). Probing teachers’ views of the nature of science: How should we do it and
where should we be looking? In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in
Europe: Current issues and themes (pp. 283 – 293). London: Falmer Press.
O’Hear, A. (1989). Introduction to the philosophy of science. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be
taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
40(7), 692 – 720.
Palmquist, B., & Finley, F. (1997). Pre-service teachers; Views of the nature of science during a postbaccalaureate
science teaching program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(6), 595 – 615.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Rampal, A. (1992). Images of science and scientists: A study of school teachers’ views. I. Characteristics of
scientists. Science Education, 76(4), 415 – 436.
Ryder, J., & Leach, J. (2008). Teaching about the epistemology of science in upper secondary schools: An analysis
of teachers’ classroom talk. Science and Education, 17(2 – 3), 289 – 315.
Samarapungavan, A., Westby, E. L., & Bodner, G. M. (2006). Contextual epistemic development in science: A
comparison of chemistry students and research chemists. Science Education, 90(3), 468 – 495.
Schwartz, R., & Lederman, N. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge and intentions
on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205 – 236.
Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1994). Mind in context. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tairab, H. (2001). How do pre-service and in-service science teachers view the nature of science and technology?
Research in Science and Technology Education, 19(2), 235 – 250.
Taylor, J. A., & Dana, T. M. (2003). Secondary school physics teachers’ conceptions of scientific evidence: An
exploratory study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 721 – 736.
Van Eijck, M., Hsu, P.-L., & Roth, W.-M. (2009). Translations of scientific practice to “students’ images of
science.” Science Education, 93, 611 – 634.
Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry”: How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices
of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481 – 512.
Wolfe, L. F. (1990). Identifying ideas about science conveyed to elementary school children. Qualitative Studies
in Education, 3(1), 15 – 29.
Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and
scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93(1), 109 – 130.
Science Education

Guerra Ramos2010 PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Guerra Ramos2010 PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ideas About the Nature of Science

MARIA TERESA GUERRA-RAMOS

JIM RYDER, JOHN LEACH

Correspondence to: Maria Teresa Guerra-Ramos; e-mail: tguerra@cinvestav.mx

and curriculum development are presented.

available in Queretaro, a medium-sized city in central Mexico. The sample comprised 30

Development of Research Instruments

Designing Posters About Scientists. A group of people designing science education

Preparing a Lesson About Scientific Inquiry. A teacher is preparing a lesson about

A Classroom Activity About Measurement. Working in groups, students measured the

The Initial Descriptive Analysis of Interview Data

The Overall Analysis of Interview Data

This resulted in a characterization of teachers’ ideas in four areas of discourse: demarca-

• Limited contextualization: A lack of discrimination, unclear examples, or no exam-

Thematic Areas of Ideas About Science in Teachers’ Discourse

Teachers’ Discourse on Science Demarcation. Accounts of the boundaries of science

In an intermediate pattern of contextualization, the person and space involved in a particular

Interviewer: How do you think scientists proceed when they do enquiries?

Interviewer: Have you ever met a scientist?

(. . . ) in the field of psychology, my nephew. He studies the behavior of people. I think, a

Interviewer: In which other context do scientists work?

Teachers’ Discourse on Scientific Procedures. Scientific procedures refers to what

(. . . ) Because it is about diseases and drugs. It could be a chemical laboratory which

Observation. Because observation is a step of scientific method; based on observation we

Interviewer: How do you think scientists proceed when they do enquiries?

The pattern of extended contextualization in scientific procedures includes quotes in which

Interviewer: Do most scientists use the same method or methods?

Well, several methods, depending on professions, depending on how science is advancing,

Teachers’ Discourse on Approaches to Reliable Knowledge. In contrast to views on

Intermediate contextualization also captures those quotes suggesting some difficulties in

of escaping molecules cannot simply involve observation with no previous introduction of

(. . . ) This (activity) could be in the group of scientific (activities) (. . . ) But, only if it is

The extended contextualization pattern is also connected to ideas on scientific knowledge

Teachers’ Discourse on Professional and Institutional Features of Science. In re-

Interviewer: In your view, are there any characteristic features of scientists?

Interviewer: In your view, are there any characteristic features of scientists?

Interviewer: Have you ever met a scientist?

There are people working in research labs (. . . ). [7A-Scientists]

The extended contextualization pattern regarding professional and institutional features of

Interviewer: In your view, are there any characteristic features of scientists?

In extended contextualization, teachers would be able to express awareness of a range

Interviewer: Have you ever met a scientist?

(. . . ) There is a doctor in space cardiology, Ramiro Iglesias Leal. He worked at NASA. He

A strongly extended contextualization would reflect some recognition of scientists as actors

Areas of Teacher Discourse Limited Intermediate Extended Subtotal

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

elaboration. Recurrent themes in their responses enabled us to characterize four broad

and sometimes results can be inconclusive) to misrepresentations of fundamental aspects

What Are the Implication of This Research for Teacher Education

Given the low prevalence of responses with an extended contextualization, it is tempting

– We should include scientists such as Newton, Einstein, and Marie Curie as

– It would be appropriate to present scientists to SECONDARY STUDENTS but not

Agenda for Semistructured Interview

Material The marble moved

Material The marble moved

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi